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.
As a medmal defense attorney, I can tell you that cases of misdiagnosis are much more common in women than in men (although the gap is gradually closing) -- and this is in no small part because doctors are very quick to attribute women's complaints to "nerves", rather than to take them seriously and investigate them. If a patient comes in with complaints of fatigue, weight loss, shortness of breath, and various aches and pains (generalized symptoms of cancer), that patient runs an increased risk of being sent home with a prescription for Prozac, rather than having a full diagnostic workup, if that patient is female.
Redisca, with all due respect, what is the end goal of our dialog? Are we really here to learn, or are we here to mentally compete with each other (with 1800 CD viewers who looked at this thread as an audience).
Make no mistake about it, you are a defense attorney,so that tells me you are trained to be aggressive, and will dispute any counter claim, even if it's valid. So, I just don't see the point of further exchange especially when I know nothing I say (or show) will sink in and germinate within you.
THANK GOODNESS WOMEN OF TODAY HAVE A CHOICE! Feminism isn't about all women giving up baby raising in favor of becoming CEOs. Nor is it about men losing their masculinity. Feminism is working towards everyone being able to define their own version of happiness, and not getting crap for it. If a woman is happy without an education, feminism sure as heck isn't forcing her to get one. At the same time though, if a woman ISN'T happy at home, feminism is what fought for her to have the right to pursue other arenas. A true feminist would be entirely hypocritical to deny a man a chance to be a stay-at-home spouse--men should have the same options and opportunities as women.
I see feminism and the sexual revolution pretty much linked. Safe and secure access to reliable birthcontrol let women delay marriage, pursue additional schooling and enter the labor market. In many respects I think Feminism is just women trying to intellectualize why the sexual revolution was good for women in general.
But, I see the consequences less about advantaging women vs men and more about disadvantaging marriage vs being single.
Before the sexual revolution most women were married when they had a kid. Today 40% of women aren't married when they have a kid.
Having a kid is a lot of work. They wake up a lot at night, have a need for multiple feedings etc. In short I think most of the women who are having kids without being married have been hurt by feminism/sexual revolution.
Remember, the sexual revolution made marriage much less of an advantage for men. Before the sexual revolution, it was much more difficult for men to have sex outside of marriage. Modernly, sex is available to men whether they are married or not. Second, the role of men and women changed in a marriage. Before the sexual revolution men were supposed to wear the pants in the relationship and women were expected to be more submissive (in practice that didn't always occur- but it was the social more of the time). Modernly married women are much less demure. Which again just makes marriage much less appealing for men.
Second the sexual revolution bid up the cost of positional goods. The cost of housing around good schools tends to be higher than the cost of housing near bad or medicore schools. When women re-entered the workforce, that primary consequence was to drive up the cost of positional goods like housing in areas with good schools. Before the sexual revolution the cost of buying into a neighborhood was driven by how much money the man made. Today its driven by the cost of how much both spouses make. So this argument that feminism has just empowered women by giving them new choices seems pretty hallow to me. Today to buy into a a neighborhood with good schools both spouses need to work to pay the mortgage. I am not sure how many women are working today because they "want to" vs how many are working today because they feel that they have to.
Additionally for all of the women with out a spouse, well they are totally screwed. These women also have to work because they need the money. This isn't a choice. But these women because they aren't married also have pretty limited choices on where they are sending there kids to school. Because single women don't have two incomes to bid on housing, her kids are getting relegated to the worst schools.
Right now the biggest predictor for a woman to go bankrupt are getting is having a child. The big reason is that in pre sexual revolution era when there were disruptions to the family income, Mom would re-enter the workforce and between what she earned and the unemployment insurance or disability income, the family could cover its expenses. If an elderly grandparent needed care, well the stay at home mom could help out. These families were resilent. Today if a grandparent gets sick there is no stay at home mom to step up. If a grandparent needs care, that means a spouse needs to quit there job to provide it. But because the family budget was predicated on two incomes, suddenly that disruption causes bankruptcy. Single women face similiar problems.
This argument that men should have the right to stay at home is entirely beside the point. Both spouses need to work to pay the higher costs of positional goods. Moreover a guy who isn't working is out of the sexual marketplace. The 40 year old guys living in his parents basement isn't marriage material. If he has a child he is a deadbeat dad who isn't able to pay his child support. Women with children don't keep men around who aren't working.
good OP
but i must say the word i saw stamped all over the paragraph was INSTABILITY.
You are right
we are in trouble.
we did not like the way our grandparents did marriage and family so we substituted our own version. we have failed.
btw know much about unstable people? i do. they have a hard time making decisions- take too long -and often make wrong ones.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 04-15-2010 at 07:18 PM..
I see feminism and the sexual revolution pretty much linked. Safe and secure access to reliable birthcontrol let women delay marriage, pursue additional schooling and enter the labor market. In many respects I think Feminism is just women trying to intellectualize why the sexual revolution was good for women in general.
But, I see the consequences less about advantaging women vs men and more about disadvantaging marriage vs being single.
Before the sexual revolution most women were married when they had a kid. Today 40% of women aren't married when they have a kid.
Having a kid is a lot of work. They wake up a lot at night, have a need for multiple feedings etc. In short I think most of the women who are having kids without being married have been hurt by feminism/sexual revolution.
Remember, the sexual revolution made marriage much less of an advantage for men. Before the sexual revolution, it was much more difficult for men to have sex outside of marriage. Modernly, sex is available to men whether they are married or not. Second, the role of men and women changed in a marriage. Before the sexual revolution men were supposed to wear the pants in the relationship and women were expected to be more submissive (in practice that didn't always occur- but it was the social more of the time). Modernly married women are much less demure. Which again just makes marriage much less appealing for men.
Second the sexual revolution bid up the cost of positional goods. The cost of housing around good schools tends to be higher than the cost of housing near bad or medicore schools. When women re-entered the workforce, that primary consequence was to drive up the cost of positional goods like housing in areas with good schools. Before the sexual revolution the cost of buying into a neighborhood was driven by how much money the man made. Today its driven by the cost of how much both spouses make. So this argument that feminism has just empowered women by giving them new choices seems pretty hallow to me. Today to buy into a a neighborhood with good schools both spouses need to work to pay the mortgage. I am not sure how many women are working today because they "want to" vs how many are working today because they feel that they have to.
Additionally for all of the women with out a spouse, well they are totally screwed. These women also have to work because they need the money. This isn't a choice. But these women because they aren't married also have pretty limited choices on where they are sending there kids to school. Because single women don't have two incomes to bid on housing, her kids are getting relegated to the worst schools.
Right now the biggest predictor for a woman to go bankrupt are getting is having a child. The big reason is that in pre sexual revolution era when there were disruptions to the family income, Mom would re-enter the workforce and between what she earned and the unemployment insurance or disability income, the family could cover its expenses. If an elderly grandparent needed care, well the stay at home mom could help out. These families were resilent. Today if a grandparent gets sick there is no stay at home mom to step up. If a grandparent needs care, that means a spouse needs to quit there job to provide it. But because the family budget was predicated on two incomes, suddenly that disruption causes bankruptcy. Single women face similiar problems.
This argument that men should have the right to stay at home is entirely beside the point. Both spouses need to work to pay the higher costs of positional goods. Moreover a guy who isn't working is out of the sexual marketplace. The 40 year old guys living in his parents basement isn't marriage material. If he has a child he is a deadbeat dad who isn't able to pay his child support. Women with children don't keep men around who aren't working.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote--I believe that it is much better to have kids when there are two parents around to share the work, absolutely! And while I personally feel they should be married due to my religious beliefs, today's society doesn't require that as it did in the past. If two people want to have kids without getting married, that's possible. If a gay couple want to have a child, that works out too. The traditional role of marriage is not the blanket end all be all of life that it once was.
As for women working driving up the cost of housing...you're right, it does. I don't know why it's bad though. My husband and I are both worker-bee types. I am HAPPY because I have a job--I feel like I make a big contribution to society each day. If the consequence of that is that someone who doesn't want to work can't buy as nice of a house, then so be it. I can't buy as nice of a house as someone who decided to be a lawyer or doctor, but I don't begrudge them for driving up home prices in nice neighborhoods!
I see feminism and the sexual revolution pretty much linked. Safe and secure access to reliable birthcontrol let women delay marriage, pursue additional schooling and enter the labor market. In many respects I think Feminism is just women trying to intellectualize why the sexual revolution was good for women in general.
But, I see the consequences less about advantaging women vs men and more about disadvantaging marriage vs being single.
Before the sexual revolution most women were married when they had a kid. Today 40% of women aren't married when they have a kid.
Having a kid is a lot of work. They wake up a lot at night, have a need for multiple feedings etc. In short I think most of the women who are having kids without being married have been hurt by feminism/sexual revolution.
Remember, the sexual revolution made marriage much less of an advantage for men. Before the sexual revolution, it was much more difficult for men to have sex outside of marriage. Modernly, sex is available to men whether they are married or not. Second, the role of men and women changed in a marriage. Before the sexual revolution men were supposed to wear the pants in the relationship and women were expected to be more submissive (in practice that didn't always occur- but it was the social more of the time). Modernly married women are much less demure. Which again just makes marriage much less appealing for men.
Second the sexual revolution bid up the cost of positional goods. The cost of housing around good schools tends to be higher than the cost of housing near bad or medicore schools. When women re-entered the workforce, that primary consequence was to drive up the cost of positional goods like housing in areas with good schools. Before the sexual revolution the cost of buying into a neighborhood was driven by how much money the man made. Today its driven by the cost of how much both spouses make. So this argument that feminism has just empowered women by giving them new choices seems pretty hallow to me. Today to buy into a a neighborhood with good schools both spouses need to work to pay the mortgage. I am not sure how many women are working today because they "want to" vs how many are working today because they feel that they have to.
Additionally for all of the women with out a spouse, well they are totally screwed. These women also have to work because they need the money. This isn't a choice. But these women because they aren't married also have pretty limited choices on where they are sending there kids to school. Because single women don't have two incomes to bid on housing, her kids are getting relegated to the worst schools.
Right now the biggest predictor for a woman to go bankrupt are getting is having a child. The big reason is that in pre sexual revolution era when there were disruptions to the family income, Mom would re-enter the workforce and between what she earned and the unemployment insurance or disability income, the family could cover its expenses. If an elderly grandparent needed care, well the stay at home mom could help out. These families were resilent. Today if a grandparent gets sick there is no stay at home mom to step up. If a grandparent needs care, that means a spouse needs to quit there job to provide it. But because the family budget was predicated on two incomes, suddenly that disruption causes bankruptcy. Single women face similiar problems.
This argument that men should have the right to stay at home is entirely beside the point. Both spouses need to work to pay the higher costs of positional goods. Moreover a guy who isn't working is out of the sexual marketplace. The 40 year old guys living in his parents basement isn't marriage material. If he has a child he is a deadbeat dad who isn't able to pay his child support. Women with children don't keep men around who aren't working.
Good post and that is a good book. Every American should read it.
I see feminism and the sexual revolution pretty much linked. Safe and secure access to reliable birthcontrol let women delay marriage, pursue additional schooling and enter the labor market. In many respects I think Feminism is just women trying to intellectualize why the sexual revolution was good for women in general.
But, I see the consequences less about advantaging women vs men and more about disadvantaging marriage vs being single.
Before the sexual revolution most women were married when they had a kid. Today 40% of women aren't married when they have a kid.
Having a kid is a lot of work. They wake up a lot at night, have a need for multiple feedings etc. In short I think most of the women who are having kids without being married have been hurt by feminism/sexual revolution.
Remember, the sexual revolution made marriage much less of an advantage for men. Before the sexual revolution, it was much more difficult for men to have sex outside of marriage. Modernly, sex is available to men whether they are married or not. Second, the role of men and women changed in a marriage. Before the sexual revolution men were supposed to wear the pants in the relationship and women were expected to be more submissive (in practice that didn't always occur- but it was the social more of the time). Modernly married women are much less demure. Which again just makes marriage much less appealing for men.
Second the sexual revolution bid up the cost of positional goods. The cost of housing around good schools tends to be higher than the cost of housing near bad or medicore schools. When women re-entered the workforce, that primary consequence was to drive up the cost of positional goods like housing in areas with good schools. Before the sexual revolution the cost of buying into a neighborhood was driven by how much money the man made. Today its driven by the cost of how much both spouses make. So this argument that feminism has just empowered women by giving them new choices seems pretty hallow to me. Today to buy into a a neighborhood with good schools both spouses need to work to pay the mortgage. I am not sure how many women are working today because they "want to" vs how many are working today because they feel that they have to.
Additionally for all of the women with out a spouse, well they are totally screwed. These women also have to work because they need the money. This isn't a choice. But these women because they aren't married also have pretty limited choices on where they are sending there kids to school. Because single women don't have two incomes to bid on housing, her kids are getting relegated to the worst schools.
Right now the biggest predictor for a woman to go bankrupt are getting is having a child. The big reason is that in pre sexual revolution era when there were disruptions to the family income, Mom would re-enter the workforce and between what she earned and the unemployment insurance or disability income, the family could cover its expenses. If an elderly grandparent needed care, well the stay at home mom could help out. These families were resilent. Today if a grandparent gets sick there is no stay at home mom to step up. If a grandparent needs care, that means a spouse needs to quit there job to provide it. But because the family budget was predicated on two incomes, suddenly that disruption causes bankruptcy. Single women face similiar problems.
This argument that men should have the right to stay at home is entirely beside the point. Both spouses need to work to pay the higher costs of positional goods. Moreover a guy who isn't working is out of the sexual marketplace. The 40 year old guys living in his parents basement isn't marriage material. If he has a child he is a deadbeat dad who isn't able to pay his child support. Women with children don't keep men around who aren't working.
Can I get a source for this yet? I gave you some of mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotARedneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca Women actually used antidepressants more in the 1950's.
There were no functional anti depressants in the 50s. Very crude sleeping pills, perhaps and drugs with minimal, poorly understood efficacy.
SSRI drugs came along starting in the 1980s.
I've come across different things on the net before. I'll post them as I find them while I search. In the 50's it was called "happiness pills or something". Not SSRI's. I think they were closer to valium.
eta: There are obviously better sources to be found, but this is a long the lines of what I've seen in the past.
"As the suburban dream grew out of the post-war housing shortages and a rapidly expanding consumerism, too many women found themselves prisoners of their new homes and captives to the growth industry of valium and drug therapy for suburban neurosis." http://www.isis.aust.com/iwd/stevens/50s60s.htm
Google this "Suburbia in the 1950s. Family Life in an Age of Anxiety" site:.edu
It's coming up as word files so I can't link it. It's an interesting read.
Also "In the 1950's, for instance, Miltown and the minor tranquilizers were prescribed to white, middle-class women four times more often than to any other demographic group- even though these women were argued to suffer from psychoneurosis at rates of only two to one compared to men".
etaa:
"Significant abuse of alcohol and tranquilizers by women occurred during the �50s. "Tranquilizers were developed in the 1950s in response to a need that physicians explicitly saw as female: Virtually nonexistent in 1955, tranquilizer consumption reached 462,000 pounds in 1958 and soared to 1.15 million pounds merely a year later. Commentators noted a sharp increase in women�s drinking during the decade" (Coontz 36; see Wm Chafe, The Unfinished Journey, 126; Edith Lisansky, "The Woman Alcoholic," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences [1958]:315)." http://www.campbell.edu/faculty/vand...ntiethCen.html
Last edited by Braunwyn; 04-16-2010 at 05:38 AM..
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.
