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.
Can you point out which one of your objections I haven't addressed?
How gender equality is completely unworkable, as a start. Note that you included the word complete, as in hopeless and no chance of improvement. Start there.
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.
He's not said this at all. Read his post again carefully.
He's not said this at all. Read his post again carefully.
The statement was that the Amish women, who seem happy, are second class but still cherished, extrapolating that women in general could be happy and cherished even under a 19th century level of living. Never mind that these anecdotes are flawed because of the secretive nature of the Amish, and that it's one small subset of the population.
Yes, under this anecdote, it theoretically COULD be possible. Does nothing to promote the idea that gender equality is completely unworkable. I also provided the anecdote of feeling loved and cherished by my husband as a counter, so it's equally possible for it to work.
First you need to study up on the unreliability of any self report survey. Then you need to study up on the fallacy of trying to quantify happiness. Then study up on surveys and statistics in general.
Who are all these women you speak of. You do realize that the majority of people marry within their own socioeconomic level and most people aren't wealthy. So there are some women who seek out wealthy men, I think they are referred to as gold diggers. As well we have men who seek out wealthy women and men who whine about not being able to find whatever it is they seek in women.
And all of that has nothing to do with feminism.
Why is feminism so great other than the fact that subjugation of another human being is the opposite of great.
Why do you think feminism came about. Because being dependent on a man for your basic survival, food, clothing, shelter; having no protection or recourse from abuse by men, rape, beating, starvation; having no voice in your own life, where you live, how you live, your reproduction or general health; being unable to pursue your intelligence, strengths, talents and goals was a reality for women.
If you're going to analyze a certain segment of society then you're going to go to the areas that have the most test data to work with.
In the case of feminists, this would be mostly urban areas in the blue states. Areas such as the Bos-Wash corridor that have a lot of liberal career women that identify themselves as feminists.
The hypergamy issue is one of the ultimate smoking guns that proves modern day feminism is a sham. I don't care to discuss the percentage of people still dating and marrying within their own socioeconomic category. To me there's a lot of grey areas.
We're talking about the people that don't, and it's certainly a fairly large number still. Hypergamy is the paralegal marrying the lawyer.
They want all of the benefits of the 1950's era world but also all of the benefits of the modern era as well,
They want to work the system to benefit them, more than men.
Last edited by wanderlust76; 06-20-2017 at 12:07 PM..
You can define it whatever way you like, but most reasonable definitions of "empowerment" would include improvements in "quality of life". One is a subset of the other, or at least there is considerable overlap between the two.
All that the paradox shows is that the net effect of these socioeconomic changes have been detrimental to women in terms of self-reported happiness. It doesn't purport to explain what the mechanisms are. So if you imply that it's strange that all of these supposed benefits for women would make them unhappy, you're as puzzled as they authors about why that is. That's why it's called a paradox.
Quick Review: This thread started out as a request for examples of how feminism has empowered women. Lots of examples have been given. Now the discussion has switched to the happiness of women. You refer to a study showing that women are not happier today, thus they are not more empowered, therefore feminism has failed.
I would like to point out a few problems.
(1) From what I can tell, you are referring to one study. More studies will be needed for confirmation. Scientists rarely put too much weight on the findings of just one study.
(2) Assuming the study is confirmed, there is still a question of cause. As you point out, the study doesn't indicate why women are unhappy.
(3) Assuming that women, statistically, really are less happy and assuming that the cause is at least partially due to the feminist agenda, it is still not entirely obvious that we should conclude that "feminism has failed."
Some considerations:
After the Emancipation Proclamation, some slaves discovered that they actually preferred being slaves because being a "free" black person in America during that time period was still no picnic, especially in the southern states. Some ex-slaves felt they had more security as slaves than as free citizens. Does this mean that the Emancipation Proclamation failed to empower black people because these ex-slaves were unhappy living as free people?
Some ex-cons discover, upon being released, that they like life in prison better than life outside, so they commit felonies so they can go back to prison. Does this imply that they were more empowered as prisoners that they were as free citizens?
My point is this: Even IF feminism is, in fact, responsible for a decline in the overall happiness of women, it is still debatable whether or not feminism has "failed to empower women." It is possible that the overall job of fully empowering women is simply not yet finished because society has still not "freed" all of them in a larger sense of the term. What if, after the Emancipation Proclamation, all social progress for Blacks had ceased at that point. What if all black people were technically "free" but trapped in an America with 1860's attitudes about race? Would we be shocked to discover that a lot of free black American citizens remained unhappy? Would this mean that the Emancipation Proclamation failed to empower blacks?
As others have pointed out, a significant number of women are expected to have full-time jobs and be the primary housekeeper and child-raiser, which to me would seem like a special sort of hell. If a majority of women are unhappy, it might be because sexism is still alive and well and feminism still has more work to do.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-20-2017 at 12:19 PM..
If you're going to analyze a certain segment of society then you're going to go to the areas that have the most test data to work with.
In the case of feminists, this would be mostly urban areas in the blue states. Areas such as the Bos-Wash corridor that has a lot of liberal career women that identify themselves as feminists.
The hypergamy issue is one of the ultimate smoking guns that proves modern day feminism is a sham. I don't care to discuss the percentage of people still dating and marrying within their own socioeconomic category. To me there's a lot of grey areas.
We're talking about the people that don't, and it's certainly a fairly large number still. Hypergamy is the paralegal marrying the lawyer.
They want all of the benefits of the 1950's era world but also all of the benefits of the modern era as well,
They want to work the system to benefit them, more than men.
LOL at the term "liberal career women". As opposed to what, conservative unemployed ladies?
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.
I said that men with breadwinning wives are 3x more likely to cheat than women with breadwinning husbands.
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.
Which is hilarious because you can look at the BLS numbers that show that SAHD rates are increasing.
Quote:
and women in the Bos-Wash corridor would not be whining about a lack of upper class salaried men.
Sorry that you confuse intelligence with wealth. Your problem, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76
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.
So marrying someone who will stay at home to raise children is marrying down, huh.
Interesting viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76
Career women feminists in the Bos-Wash corridor in 2017 can't do any of that? What's their problem?
Just 'cause you were willing to "marry down", doesn't mean I have to.
That's the cool thing about choice. I can choose to date and marry intelligent men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76
Explain the paradox. Or you've got nothing.
All doctors and lawyers aren't women. If every single high-paying job was held by a woman, any who wanted to marry and have kids, would have to "marry down". Just like the men of yesteryears.
But since anyone can work towards a higher-paying job, neither side is being forced to marry down. So I know I sure as heck won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
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.
The "not all men" is implied in my snarky comment, by the by..
The implication is that it's amusing when men who believe that women are inferior and should subjugated often use terrible logic then attempt to drown out female dissent by telling them to calm down. Or claiming that any female dissenters are just "upset", "hurt", "shrill", or otherwise overly emotional.
How gender equality is completely unworkable, as a start. Note that you included the word complete, as in hopeless and no chance of improvement. Start there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latimeria
The statement was that the Amish women, who seem happy, are second class but still cherished, extrapolating that women in general could be happy and cherished even under a 19th century level of living. Never mind that these anecdotes are flawed because of the secretive nature of the Amish, and that it's one small subset of the population.
Yes, under this anecdote, it theoretically COULD be possible. Does nothing to promote the idea that gender equality is completely unworkable. I also provided the anecdote of feeling loved and cherished by my husband as a counter, so it's equally possible for it to work.
I don't think you're familiar with the concept of an inductive argument.
1. Premise 1
2. Premise 2
3. Premise 3
etc...
Conclusion: Therefore [P].
What you seem to be doing here is considering each individual premise separately as if you would consider separate logical arguments.
That is not how induction works. You have to consider each premise within the context of the broader form of the argument, and to evaluate whether or not they're sound, contributing to the overall conclusion. Any single premise is insufficient to prove the conclusion.
You don't seem to be familiar with the concept of an inductive argument.
1. Premise 1
2. Premise 2
3. Premise 3
etc...
Conclusion: Therefore [P].
Any single premise is not sufficient for the conclusion to be true. What you seem to be doing here is considering each individual premise separately as if you would consider separate logical arguments.
That is not how induction works. You have to consider each premise within the context of the broader form of the argument to say whether they contribute to the overall conclusion or not.
No, there are not a lot of correlations being presented that support inductive reasoning that feminism is a failure, so it fails. Stop assuming what I do and do not know just because I don't agree with your faulty conclusions.
Quick Review: This thread started out as a request for examples of how feminism has empowered women. Lots of examples have been given. Now the discussion has moved on to the happiness of women. You refer to a study showing that women are not happier today, thus they are not more empowered, therefore feminism has failed.
I would like to point out a few problems.
(1) From what I can tell, you are referring to one study. More studies will be needed for confirmation. Scientists rarely put too much weight on the findings of just one study.
(2) Assuming the study confirmed, there is still a question of cause. As you point out, the study doesn't indicate why women are unhappy.
(3) Assuming that women, statistically, really are less happy and assuming that the cause is at least partially due to the feminist agenda, it is still not entirely obvious that we should conclude that "feminism has failed."
Some considerations:
After the Emancipation Proclamation, some slaves discovered that they actually preferred being slaves because being a "free" black person in America during that time period was still no picnic, especially in the southern states. Some ex-slaves felt they had more security as slaves than as free citizens. Does this mean that the Emancipation Proclamation failed to empower black people because these ex-slaves were unhappy living as free people?
Some ex-cons discover, upon being released, that they like life in prison better than life outside, so they commit felonies so they can go back to prison. Does this imply that they were more empowered as prisoners that they were as free citizens?
My point is this: Even IF feminism is, in fact, responsible for a decline in the overall happiness of women, it is still debatable whether or not feminism has "failed to empower women." It is possible that the overall job of fully empowering women is simply not yet finished because society has still not "freed" all of them in a larger sense of the term. What if, after the Emancipation Proclamation, all social progress for Blacks had ceased at that point. What if all black people were technically "free" but trapped in an America with 1860's attitudes about race? Would we be shocked to discover that a lot of free black American citizens remained unhappy? Would this mean that the Emancipation Proclamation failed to empower blacks?
As others have pointed out, a significant number of women are expected to have full-time jobs and be the primary housekeeper and child-raiser, which to me would seem like a special sort of hell.
Many of these points have already been covered over the course of the thread. For example, on how we would define empowerment and quality of life when it comes to happiness.
Also, we've only delved into the sociological evidence so far. We've not even covered the neurobiology, for example.
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.
