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.
Yeah, I agree that I don't think they were lying back then. There is a theory that the more choices people have, the less happy they are. It might be because of the increased choice. I saw it done with an experiment with ice cream flavors. People's stress levels went up when they had 20 choices vs. 2. For ice cream! It's probably 10 times worse for life changing choices.
Although that said (and theorized) I have yet to find a person who opts for less choices over more (when, ironically, given a choice).
I heard references to this before, and I know for myself that is true. I think that's why I can go into a walk-in closet and still feel I having nothing to wear.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
But people don't have any more choice than they did 50 years ago. As long as there's a roughly equal number of males and females in a monogamous society, the opportunity to pair up with someone you're attracted to doesn't change based on technology, total population size, etc.
Welcome to the club, I guess? Guys get told to "shut up and deal with it" for the longest time and the options to let that out aren't in abundance.
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/18/gender.bookextracts?_r=0"]Women lives as man for a year...prefers being a woman much more.[/URL]
Pretty much. I'm a card-carrying member of the Quityerbitchin Club, so no argument here. Middle class women, while they bemoan the struggle of at-home-mom vs. working-mom, need to check themselves and remember that men still don't have that luxury; the default is men must go to work, in the absence of unusual circumstances. Being at home full-time blows (IMO), but I do not take for granted the fact that I have that luxury of being able to choose between economic vulnerability and economic stability.
But people don't have any more choice than they did 50 years ago. As long as there's a roughly equal number of males and females in a monogamous society, the opportunity to pair up with someone you're attracted to doesn't change based on technology, total population size, etc.
This is mathematically impossible in a monogamous society with an equal number of males and females. Sure, the number of males may increase, but that doesn't lead to more choice for women, because the number of females competing for the males increases just the same.
I heard references to this before, and I know for myself that is true. I think that's why I can go into a walk-in closet and still feel I having nothing to wear.
I don't believe in astrology, but if I did, I'd fit the description of Libra perfectly.
"This one...no, this one. No, wait, that one. Okay, the first one. LOOK, SHINY THING!"
(Which probably explains the way I drag out making a commitment to anyone, too.)
This is mathematically impossible in a monogamous society with an equal number of males and females. Sure, the number of males may increase, but that doesn't lead to more choice for women, because the number of females competing for the males increases just the same.
50 years ago a woman had no choice when she got pregnant.
50 years ago a woman had to get married or live in poverty.
50 years ago a woman could only work in a handful of fields.
50 years ago a woman did not have the choice of working or raising a family.
50 years ago a woman did not have the option to work without sexual harassment.
50 years ago most women did not have an option of divorcing.
The list goes on and on.
The fact that there are an equal number of men/women has no bearing on the topic at hand; nor with the study.
50 years ago a woman had no choice when she got pregnant.
50 years ago a woman had to get married or live in poverty.
50 years ago a woman could only work in a handful of fields.
50 years ago a woman did not have the choice of working or raising a family.
50 years ago a woman did not have the option to work without sexual harassment.
50 years ago most women did not have an option of divorcing.
The list goes on and on.
The fact that there are an equal number of men/women has no bearing on the topic at hand; nor with the study.
Also, see another thread for the debate on whether there are equal numbers of men and women to begin with. It's fun! It has sexism. It has generalizations. It has bitterness and manosphere douchebaggery. It has charts with lots of pretty dots!
My thought is that although SOME women would have been much more unhappy had they lived X number of years ago than they are today, I think that the majority of middle-class women were much happier before they were expected to be superwomen -- to have a perfect family AND a great job. I think there is just too much pressure to have BOTH.
Back when it was more of an either-or situation -- a woman was either a single "career" woman OR a wife and mother, she could concentrate on whatever choice she made, and find more happiness and fulfillment in that choice. As far as married childless women X number of years ago, I think that these women could be happy, too, IF they were married, childless and had a job by choice and if their husbands supported them in this choice.
Of course, there are some women out there who can and do both well and are happy doing so, but I personally don't know of any who do that without feeling a great amount of stress and guilt.
Also, of course, it seems that people also expect much more in the way of "things" now, too. What was considered enough X number of years ago isn't not enough for some people today -- plus, of course, incomes don't go as far today as they did before, either. Almost everyone is struggling in some way today, whether is is just making enough money to live or making enough money to get the things they think they should have (cable TV, expensive vacations, and Smartphones, for example).
Just my two cents, of course.
Last edited by katharsis; 07-25-2015 at 06:49 PM..
Also, see another thread for the debate on whether there are equal numbers of men and women to begin with. It's fun! It has sexism. It has generalizations. It has bitterness and manosphere douchebaggery. It has charts with lots of pretty dots!
But does it have a pony? No thread is complete with a pony.
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.
