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.
You can say what you like about what type of argument you are using, but at the end of the day, you are still claiming moral superiority over people who have different views to yours. .
Yes, I absolutely am. I am claiming moral superiority over anyone who believes that women are less than human beings, and who thinks that women should not receive basic human rights.
I used the Amish, earlier on, as an example of how women can be respected and cared for without the social sequelae of feminism.
You can say what you like about what type of argument you are using, but at the end of the day, you are still claiming moral superiority over people who have different views to yours. If you're going to defend this point of view, you'll need some grasp of the meta-ethics of the topic whether you like it or not.
Amish girls are raised to be subservient to men are expected to marry and have children. Wonder how many who don't get banished? Marrying because your want to is one thing but to be raised with that specific intent is third world thinking women girls should have choice
Or if you don't like reading peer-reviewed journals, this video talks about the study findings:
I think the last paragraph or so of page 27 may be in play here a lot and not necessarily supporting your notion of 19th century bliss.
"The second possibility is that broad social shifts such as those brought on by the changing role of women in society fundamentally alter what measures of subjective well-being are capturing. Over time it is likely that women are aggregating satisfaction over an increasingly larger domain set. For example, life satisfaction may have previously meant “satisfaction at home” and has increasingly come to mean some combination of “satisfaction at home” and “satisfaction at work. This averaging over many domains may lead to falling average satisfaction if it is difficult to achieve the same degree of satisfaction in multiple domains. One piece of evidence along these lines is that the correlation between happiness and marital happiness is lower for women who work compared with those who are stay at home wives, and the correlation has fallen over time for all women in our sample. Unfortunately, data limitations prevent us from fully exploring this theory."
So where previous data was based on domesticity in general, a broader definition is now in play and not necessarily comparable to previous results. It will take time to adjust and get new comparable data. In no way does this support any assertion that second class status would be preferable.
Yes, I absolutely am. I am claiming moral superiority over anyone who believes that women are less than human beings, and who thinks that women should not receive basic human rights.
Even if I had said this (I didn't), can you prove how morally superior you are using proper meta-ethical reasoning rather than these angry diatribes?
I think the last paragraph or so of page 27 may be in play here a lot and not necessarily supporting your notion of 19th century bliss.
"The second possibility is that broad social shifts such as those brought on by the changing role of women in society fundamentally alter what measures of subjective well-being are capturing. Over time it is likely that women are aggregating satisfaction over an increasingly larger domain set. For example, life satisfaction may have previously meant “satisfaction at home” and has increasingly come to mean some combination of “satisfaction at home” and “satisfaction at work. This averaging over many domains may lead to falling average satisfaction if it is difficult to achieve the same degree of satisfaction in multiple domains. One piece of evidence along these lines is that the correlation between happiness and marital happiness is lower for women who work compared with those who are stay at home wives, and the correlation has fallen over time for all women in our sample. Unfortunately, data limitations prevent us from fully exploring this theory."
So where previous data was based on domesticity in general, a broader definition is now in play and not necessarily comparable to previous results. It will take time to adjust and get new comparable data. In no way does this support any assertion that second class status would be preferable.
You've probably realized by now that you're actually giving evidence for why women in a purely domestic environment are happier than women who pursue a career, or try to balance the two. I think Gavin Mcinnes said it best about this:
If there's a vast network of sorority alums denying men jobs in fields for which men are qualified, yes.
But I never wrote "I'm against fraternities". I'm against sexism.
The frat alums are hiring their buddies because of simply that... They're buddies. There are both women and men being denied jobs they qualify for because they were not in the same frat. How is this sexism of both men and women are being denied? The women aren't being denied because they are women, they're being denied because the guy in charge of hiring is helping his friends.
You've probably realized by now that you're actually giving evidence for why women in a purely domestic environment are happier than women who pursue a career, or try to balance the two. I think Gavin Mcinnes said it best about this:
This article delves more into examining that study. There are more factors...for example, many men aren't taking on a fair share of the housework in comparison, even in households where they decide that 2 incomes are needed, so that is a further burden.
You still definitely haven't given evidence that it was best in 19th century or so, as you suggested was needed. Let's say somehow women "should" be in he home. 19th century living would also mean she couldn't vote, considered second class, can't own property, seen more as second class chattel that could be beaten as needed. What is magical about THAT era? Why do women have to be second class in your scenario?
Last edited by latimeria; 06-19-2017 at 06:25 PM..
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.
