Why Were Women Happier Before?

[WIP]

What rubbish. Only took 3 pages to play the rape card. sigh.

Do you have any daughters? Or have you considered that your wife cannot move about as freely in public as you can?.........didn't think so! The streets are still safe enough in most cities for the average guy to walk at night, but all you have to do is observe the cars slowing down to take a closer look every time they see an attractive young woman walking after dark. Most will hopefully only just want to get a better look (I try to also, but I try to be discreet about it); but a woman who attracts the attention of every heterosexual guy who drives by, is also at risk of getting noticed by the ones who have darker intentions......and you should be able to figure it out from there!

[sharkman]

Do you have any daughters? Or have you considered that your wife cannot move about as freely in public as you can?.........didn't think so! The streets are still safe enough in most cities for the average guy to walk at night, but all you have to do is observe the cars slowing down to take a closer look every time they see an attractive young woman walking after dark. Most will hopefully only just want to get a better look (I try to also, but I try to be discreet about it); but a woman who attracts the attention of every heterosexual guy who drives by, is also at risk of getting noticed by the ones who have darker intentions......and you should be able to figure it out from there!

Your world is beginning to concern me, how often do you go cruising for chicks?

Edited May 28, 2009 by sharkman

[kimmy]

Breaking the 'tradition' barrier is a lot easier said than done.

For a start, it means that your qualifications have to wildly exceed all other applicants in order for you to be considered at all. It means, also, that to move up the ladder, it will still have to be true, and that you will have to be the one to point out that fact. Even then, you are likely to spend most of your career watching less qualified, less able people being promoted ahead of you.

I feel that most of this is nonsense and hype. I feel that for the most part women who find themselves in "female workplace ghettos" (or whatever "equal pay" advocates call these sorts of jobs) are there through their own choices, not because they were barred or discouraged from entering better-paying fields.

It is sexist to assume that the men in male-dominated professions are sexists.

My dad and my former special guy of 6 years are both electrical engineers; I've discussed technical fields with them many times; they've both tried to encourage me to enter the field myself. They're not sexist. The people they work with aren't sexist. They tell me that they're more than willing to consider female applicants whenever they get the opportunity, which is frankly not often due to the shortage of applicants.

When I was in school, we received a number of presentations from groups trying to promote non-traditional careers for women. I'm sorry to report that after the presentations, when my peers talked among themselves, the general reaction was "giggle, as if." I'm sorry to say it, but in my estimation, the hand has been extended over and over again, and it has been scoffed at.

I have worked in construction for 2 years now. I take serious issue with the idea that some academic could at some point in the future sit down and cross reference my work with some traditional female job and conclude "well gee, Kimmy's job doesn't require more education or qualification than this receptionist, so it doesn't seem appropriate that Kimmy earns so much more money." That infuriates me. Because I've seen that lard-ass at work, and she doesn't even earn what she gets paid, let alone what I'm paid. If she doesn't think she's paid fairly compared to what I earn, I challenge her to try a day at my job.

-k

[betsy]

My father was the distant, remote authoritarian Christian that you admire -

Whoa! I think you're letting the religion debate get to you....you seem to be turning this into a personal issue.

and I hated his guts! I swore that I would do things differently when my time came, and it's hard to break the mold, but I am not the kind of dad my father was! I attended prenatal classes before our first was born, was in the delivery room with each one of them, I changed diapers, did the babysitting and taking the kids to the park - and enjoyed almost every minute of it. I have a stronger relationship with my children because the social norms are a little different than when I grew up.

Oh puhleeez....you're barking at the wrong tree! You deserve a pat on the shoulder. I can't reach you, so give yourself one for me. I'm on your side on this duh...

We've encroached on each other's percieved turf. But in the process, women had lost more than they've gained...at least that's how I see it. They whine that they cannot compete with men in the workforce.....and now, they're also competeing with men at home! Men like you...who have a knack for being great with their kids....are now filling the same space that women once exclusively had!

No wonder women are walking around with long faces! It's just not fair!

Let me tell you about an article in the paper about a man who thought he'd show his support for the feminist movement by speaking up in support of women...only to be told by the organizers his support is not needed! I forgot the exact terms used but the guy's support was rudely thrown back to his face.

This was a while back, probably about 5 years ago....and that article got stuck in my mind and really made me loathe what this movement had become!

A lot of women do not see themselves represented by this lunatic group...that's why a different women's group was formed. It's called REAL WOMEN! Now, that's my kind of group!

I'm tired of seeing manly women screeching out bashing all men!

Wear that badge proudly! If mother hen decided not to, or for some reason cannot sit on her egg, somebody has to!

Believe it or not, some women feel "forced" to go out there now...because it's expected of them!

It's not only women who go for material things, you know. But the pressure doesn't come from the need for material things alone. It also comes from some feminazis who put down women who stay at home.

In fact, a while back on a debate right on this forum with a couple of feminazis, one of them described a stay-at-home neighbor as a "spoiled bitch." Of course, they were just greeeen with envy!

Edited May 29, 2009 by betsy

[sharkman]

Betsy, WIP is just another bitter child still angry at his parents who made all the important decisions in his life based on doing the opposite of his dad. How sad, and he's still not happy.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Mother nature is rarely wrong.

If you talk about evolution (something many progressives want to force down everyone's throat), women are hard wired to be nesters, homemakers, mommies and nurturers. WHereas men are hardwired to be hunters, providers and protectors.

There are MOST CERTAINLY exceptions to this rule, and I think someone earlier on this post was correct in saying that women do enjoy doing some work that interests them, but don't wanna necessarily go hunt for dollars all day long so that someone else can cook the bacon in the pan.

There are many women who enjoy many fields. But these are exceptions.

Just look around. You can try to blame the multi billion dollar beauty industry on social indoctrination if you want. But that's just some ugly women with sour grapes.

If you actually pay attention to women when they speak you notice that it's in their blood. They're hardwired to want to "be attractive". That's why they instinctively flip their hair or start acting girly and sexy when an eligible attractive financially stable tall male is present.

It's not the beauty industry. It's mother nature.

Why are women less happy? Possibly because the multi-billion dollar government funded academic women's movement has convinced many women who would be happy to live fullfilling and very important lives as mothers and family builders that that is a shitty life. And that the only way to happiness is to get a career and a job and to "compete along side men".

Sure, some women will do this and more power to them.

Back to Darwin. Why do you think it is that the majority of university students are women, the majority of law students and medical students today are women.

Yet despite decades upon decades of the women's movements best efforts, affirmative action, government legislation, preferred hiring and university acceptamnce standards even in non-trivial fields like firefighting and law enforcement, women still earn less, generally don't reach as high up the corporate ladder and achieve less than men.

Why is that? Well the leftozombies who've been regergitating the same dated feminazi playbook since the early 80's would have you believe it's because "men are keeping women down...and we have to redouble our efforts even more". In other words, try even harder to fight mother nature.

But if Darwin was right, maybe it's just a natural instinct toward the propogation of the species - the motherly instinct that leads women to lives which balance SOME work with family- so instead of working till 8pm every night to get that high paying partnership, they take mat leave at age 29, then come back to the firm and enjoy a well paying (but not top paying) position in securities law working 9-4pm. Never tto get that partnership at $400K, but hard done by? Discriminated against? No.

Hey, men aren't the ones who play with dolls and playhouses and have play weddings when they're 8 years old. So when women grow up and get hitched with kids - that's the dream they've always had since childhood - not the man's.

Really, it's mostly men who knuckle down, give up their dreams and lifestyles to wake up every monday morning, go to work in the shitty second car to make his wife's childhood playtime a reality.

If we weren't all so societally trained to assume it's always the women who are hard done by, maybe we'd take a moment to question whether men are actually happy running around picking up nickles while women go to university, get their obligatory arts degree while searching for a hubby to paythe mortgage when they get knocked up.

My $0.02

Edited May 29, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[cybercoma]

Well, retail store workers do practically nothing

Ever work retail in a store that wasn't a mom and pop shop?

[WIP]

Betsy, WIP is just another bitter child still angry at his parents who made all the important decisions in his life based on doing the opposite of his dad. How sad, and he's still not happy.

'So says the thin-skinned wimp who calls himself a Christian, and can't take any criticism himself! BTW what happened to your ignore list?

[WIP]

Whoa! I think you're letting the religion debate get to you....you seem to be turning this into a personal issue.

It is by its very nature a personal issue, since half the population are women, and the other half have to learn how to deal with them.

Oh puhleeez....you're barking at the wrong tree! You deserve a pat on the shoulder. I can't reach you, so give yourself one for me. I'm on your side on this duh...

I'm not interested in your pity; I'm just explaining where I'm coming from. Just like everyone else, my life experiences prejudice my opinions about your religion and that good old fashioned patriarchy that alot of people seem to be looking back on with fondness these days. That said, I don't see a whole lot of merit behind the arguments for either!

We've encroached on each other's percieved turf. But in the process, women had lost more than they've gained...at least that's how I see it. They whine that they cannot compete with men in the workforce.....and now, they're also competeing with men at home! Men like you...who have a knack for being great with their kids....are now filling the same space that women once exclusively had!

No wonder women are walking around with long faces! It's just not fair!

Primitive hunter/gatherer societies that have been studied by anthropologists, all have sharp, rigid distinctions between roles for men and women -- although they do not consistently apply to the actual things that men and women do in their day to day lives. For example, in some primitive tribes, farming is woman's work; in others, it's men's work.

As civilization has progressed, the only thing standing in the way of removing artificially imposed gender barriers are religious and cultural rules that try to enforce arbitrary rules over: whether women can be in the workforce, whether women should have access to education, whether women with children can work, what sorts of jobs they should allowed, whether men should share traditional female roles of childcare, cooking, housework etc.. The physiological differences between men and women, that predetermined their roles in life in primitive societies, are out of place in the modern world. Biology isn't necessarily destiny these days, and with all of the opportunities we have now, it's stupid to apply the straightjacket of antiquated traditions to keep either men or women from doing what makes them happy.

Let me tell you about an article in the paper about a man who thought he'd show his support for the feminist movement by speaking up in support of women...only to be told by the organizers his support is not needed! I forgot the exact terms used but the guy's support was rudely thrown back to his face.

This was a while back, probably about 5 years ago....and that article got stuck in my mind and really made me loathe what this movement had become!

I'm sure it's really happened, but my support for women's rights is based on principle, not whatever the political feminist movement happens to be doing.

A lot of women do not see themselves represented by this lunatic group...that's why a different women's group was formed. It's called REAL WOMEN! Now, that's my kind of group!

I'm tired of seeing manly women screeching out bashing all men!

I've heard of the Real Women group. They are a joke; just a bunch of meddling church ladies who want to turn the clock back to 1955. Is a group that bashes women (like you're doing here) any better than a group that bashes men?

Believe it or not, some women feel "forced" to go out there now...because it's expected of them!

Thanks to conservative, union-busting, free trade economic policies, I can believe that many women with young children do feel forced to go back to work! The fact is that it is not all about greed and materialism. Owning a home and supporting a family is out of reach for most people. I am, as a matter of fact, the sole provider for my family for the last 10 years or so since my wife had to stop working due to a medical condition. Last year my gross income before taxes was $73,000, and we are not exactly living on easy street! We had to sell our house and buy an older home, and go from being a two car to a one car family. So how realistic is your Ozzy & Harriet vision of family life for most middle class families?

It's not only women who go for material things, you know. But the pressure doesn't come from the need for material things alone. It also comes from some feminazis who put down women who stay at home.

I don't read a lot of books or articles by feminist leaders, but I can't recall any denigrating stay-at-home mothers. Got any names or links? The term "feminazi" raises a red flag with me, because it was coined by pill-popping, closeted homosexual rightwing talk show host Rush Limbaugh.....let's just say I'm not a fan!

In fact, a while back on a debate right on this forum with a couple of feminazis, one of them described a stay-at-home neighbor as a "spoiled bitch." Of course, they were just greeeen with envy!

I wasn't aware of that debate; must have been before I arrived here.

[betsy]

Betsy, WIP is just another bitter child still angry at his parents who made all the important decisions in his life based on doing the opposite of his dad. How sad, and he's still not happy.

I can see that now....and understand what you meant when you adviced me to have patience. Hopefully he won't be whacking me with my Christianity in every topic/area on this board. It's kind of getting personal. He should realize that by doing that only shows he's just behaving like a sore loser from that religion/evolution debate.

Edited May 29, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

'So says the thin-skinned wimp who calls himself a Christian, and can't take any criticism himself! BTW what happened to your ignore list?

Obviously you two had a history in the form of an intense debate by the looks of it....and obviously Sharkman made a lot of good points in that debate! You're still foaming....

[betsy]

Whoa! I think you're letting the religion debate get to you....you seem to be turning this into a personal issue

It is by its very nature a personal issue, since half the population are women, and the other half have to learn how to deal with them.

Nice try....trying to wiggle out of it.

....since half the population are women, and the other half have to learn how to deal with them.

Btw, what exactly do you mean by this? This sound like a sexist remark!

Edited May 29, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

Your world is beginning to concern me, how often do you go cruising for chicks?

I don't go cruising for chicks, but I am a normal, functioning male, and I'm not a hypocrite like most self-professed Christians, so I am aware of the problems that would result by acting impulsively to try to satisfy basic sexual instincts.

Now, you still haven't addressed the obvious problem that the world is a more dangerous place for women than it is for men. Either you are unaware, or you don't give a shit!

Whatever, obviously women have to take more precautions when walking about, than men do (this is one of the reasons I insisted my daughter take some martial arts training). The tragedy is that both men and women assume that this is as it should be, and women shouldn't feel as free to move about as men do.

This way of thinking bears an uncanny resemblance to the reasons traditional Muslim women give for wanting to wear burqas or niqaab garments that completely shroud them. They say that it protects their virtue and gives a little more protection from men, because they don't arouse lust in a man by wearing a black, burlap sack. Sadly, they do not ask why men shouldn't be expected to control their primal sexual drives even if they have aroused them by baring an ankle or something!

[betsy]

I don't read a lot of books or articles by feminist leaders, but I can't recall any denigrating stay-at-home mothers. Got any names or links? The term "feminazi" raises a red flag with me, because it was coined by pill-popping, closeted homosexual rightwing talk show host Rush Limbaugh.....let's just say I'm not a fan!

I wasn't aware of that debate; must have been before I arrived here.

Never read Rush Limbaugh....and learned that term feminazi right here on this board....in that very lively and intense debate!

And yeah, you should know me by know. I don't spout off opinion lightly....for no good reason!

You give me a headache WIP.

So let me take a vacation from you....deal with that chip on your shoulder. It's too heavy lugging it around.

Edited May 29, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

Btw, what exactly do you mean by this? This sound like a sexist remark!

A man who does not bother to learn how women think, and what they consider to be important, is not going to have a very happy time being married or even living with a woman. And this works the other way too! Some women expect men to talk about "feelings" and see things the way they do, and get mad if the man becomes even more withdrawn and doesn't want to talk about it.

[WIP]

Obviously you two had a history in the form of an intense debate by the looks of it....and obviously Sharkman made a lot of good points in that debate! You're still foaming....

Considering that you think creationists make a lot of good points, that might be the conclusion you would come to! What I'm foaming at is someone who gets mad during a debate (and because I had someone on my friends list that he doesn't like -- almost like a typical high school girl, come to think of it!) and broadcasts that I've been put on his "ignore list" but then appears, sniping at me from the sidelines on a regular basis....so, I return the favour!

[WIP]

Never read Rush Limbaugh....and learned that term feminazi right here on this board....in that very lively and intense debate!

Then you are thoughtlessly or mindlessly parroting conservative attack phrases that have no merit. Think about it. Nazi implies fascism or fascist-leaning. I don't know what every strain of feminist thinking wants, but I can't think of any prominent feminists that would impose fascism. On the other hand, the conservative movement argues in favour of militarism, extreme nationalism, and unquestioned loyalty to conservative leaders -- so by labeling feminists as Nazis, they are once again, accusing their opponents of having goals and desires that they themselves share!

[Molly]

I feel that most of this is nonsense and hype. I feel that for the most part women who find themselves in "female workplace ghettos" (or whatever "equal pay" advocates call these sorts of jobs) are there through their own choices, not because they were barred or discouraged from entering better-paying fields.

It is sexist to assume that the men in male-dominated professions are sexists.

My dad and my former special guy of 6 years are both electrical engineers; I've discussed technical fields with them many times; they've both tried to encourage me to enter the field myself. They're not sexist. The people they work with aren't sexist. They tell me that they're more than willing to consider female applicants whenever they get the opportunity, which is frankly not often due to the shortage of applicants.

When I was in school, we received a number of presentations from groups trying to promote non-traditional careers for women. I'm sorry to report that after the presentations, when my peers talked among themselves, the general reaction was "giggle, as if." I'm sorry to say it, but in my estimation, the hand has been extended over and over again, and it has been scoffed at.

I have worked in construction for 2 years now. I take serious issue with the idea that some academic could at some point in the future sit down and cross reference my work with some traditional female job and conclude "well gee, Kimmy's job doesn't require more education or qualification than this receptionist, so it doesn't seem appropriate that Kimmy earns so much more money." That infuriates me. Because I've seen that lard-ass at work, and she doesn't even earn what she gets paid, let alone what I'm paid. If she doesn't think she's paid fairly compared to what I earn, I challenge her to try a day at my job.

-k

There's much I could say to this, Kimmy, but I will severely restrict it : First, you aren't the only woman here to have had a non-traditional career role. I'm fully aware that some folks are gender-blind, or feminist, but equally aware that there are others who are not, and some of them have power over career advancement and moment-to-moment success. The choice of a non-traditional career does not come without risks and challenges that a traditional applicant would be exempt from. If you haven't run into it yet, good... but you will. (There are plenty of guys right here in this forum who see all women as walking wombs. If one of them is your potential boss or customer, you won't be the exception. )

Secondly, if your peers didn't largely respond in a traditional manner, then there would be no 'tradition' requiring the extension of that hand, and no such thing as a 'non-traditional' role. Social pressure is no small thing, and it's much larger to some than to others. Especially in collective terms, it is not easily or quickly cast off.

Thirdly, before you disparage the receptionist too much, try a day or five at HER job. I don't know the specific receptionist you are talking about. You might be absolutely right about her, but for me, even with a fat paycheck, having to be a receptionist would be my worst nightmare. However, I see little merit in 'equal pay for work of equal value' beyond the mental exercize. The best application of it is to inform potential receptionists that if they break with tradition, for similar effort they could recieve far greater reward.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't know. I firmly believe that the idea that there are a bunch of gender biased men out there conspiring to "keep the woman down" is a load of crap.

Everytime I see a woman in a traditionally non-female position or ina position of power, she proves herself as soon as she starts to speak. And when men see this, 99% of them are willing to give her the same respect as they do men in similar roles.

SUre, if she does something mean or "bitchy", men may secretly say "the bitch is at it again" or whatever. But that's no different from women secretly calling man bosses "assholes" or "pricks" or whatever. That's just a kneejerk reaction that somehow always finds its way into gender namecalling regardless of which gender happens to be doing the calling.

Anyway, the point is that men aren't generally gender-haters. We are a meritocracy: the law of the jungle. If you can prove your worth around men, you're in. If you can't, you're not. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, green, have 3 breasts and 2 penises.

If women could learn to accept this, life would be alot easier for them.

[Borg]

I don't know. I firmly believe that the idea that there are a bunch of gender biased men out there conspiring to "keep the woman down" is a load of crap.

Everytime I see a woman in a traditionally non-female position or ina position of power, she proves herself as soon as she starts to speak. And when men see this, 99% of them are willing to give her the same respect as they do men in similar roles.

SUre, if she does something mean or "bitchy", men may secretly say "the bitch is at it again" or whatever. But that's no different from women secretly calling man bosses "assholes" or "pricks" or whatever. That's just a kneejerk reaction that somehow always finds its way into gender namecalling regardless of which gender happens to be doing the calling.

Anyway, the point is that men aren't generally gender-haters. We are a meritocracy: the law of the jungle. If you can prove your worth around men, you're in. If you can't, you're not. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, green, have 3 breasts and 2 penises.

If women could learn to accept this, life would be alot easier for them.

Warning! Warning!

Common sense alert!

Borg

[Argus]

That's a cheap, cheesy, and misleading excuse. The fact is that many occupations are still largely unavailable to women, because they would not even be considered, much less hired, at entry level. That kick to the gut at entry level follows them through their entire working lives.

Would you like to have a try at naming these "many occupations" for me? I can't think of any offhand.

Time off for pregnancy is meaningless when the job is underpaid busywork, rather than an actual career.

You mean like most people have?

Women with meaningful, reasonably well-paid occupations don't, for the most part, take that time.

They do where I work.

[Argus]

Are you saying you don't understand the relevance of "how happy women are" to their likelihood of being victims of violent and/or sexual attacks? Either you're as thick as a brick, or you're a woman-hater...or maybe both.

I'm saying that since neither of you has done anything to establish that violence or the threat of violence towards women is greater or lesser now than it was thirty or forty years ago it's irrelevent to the conversation.

What Bullshit! Do you go up and start fights with guys who are twice your size? Every asshole who starts a fight, or beats someone up, claims they were provoked. You are making excuses for people who don't deserve any alibis!

I think these women have a tendency to believe that hit/punch their spouse and that the spouse will not hit/punch back, or at least, will severely restrict their physical response, which I believe, most do. In any event, I've seen studies which suggest women initiate these things as often as men.

Or maybe the survey is based on subjective, self-reporting data, and is not worth much more than the paper it was written on!

Maybe, but it falls in line with my observances of women in the workplace, particularly young mothers.

Francine. No kids. Hates her job, hated her last job, and the one before that

Valerie. Off on maternity leave for the 2nd time. Not looking forward to returning

Tiffany. No kids, desperately searching for a man to take her away from all this.

Samantha. No kids, wishes she could retire (at 30)

Christie. No kids, likes her job. I don't see her as a housewife frankly

Shannon. On maternity leave with 2nd kid. Would like to work maybe 3 days a week

Jane. Pregnant for 2nd time. hates her job

Anne. Pregnant for first time. Looking forward to maternity leave all through next winter

Cindy. Single mother, unhappy at work, looking for a man.

Annick. Mother of one. bored at work. Would love to stay home.

Lois. Mother of two. Likes work but would love to spend more time with the kids while they're young.

Salary range is between $50,000-$85,000, age is mostly in late twenties, early thirties.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Argus

[sharkman]

'So says the thin-skinned wimp who calls himself a Christian, and can't take any criticism himself! BTW what happened to your ignore list?

You're still on it, and I review/don't review your comments on a case by case basis. In this one, I noticed your comments on your father through Betsy's quote. You're still on probation young man, you're grounded until further notice until you give me an essay on how being angry at me your father hurts you until you get over it.

Unfortunately I have seen your future in my brother who is bitter at our parents, he once screamed at me that they had no right to join the ministry(dad was a minister and we were raised in a poor preacher's home) and keep the family from a proper inheritance! Bitterness will fester and rot you from the inside out. It doesn't matter even if you are right about your parents, you will end up being robbed of the important things in life.

[WIP]

You're still on it, and I review/don't review your comments on a case by case basis. In this one, I noticed your comments on your father through Betsy's quote. You're still on probation young man, you're grounded until further notice until you give me an essay on how being angry at me your father hurts you until you get over it.

And I am likely much older than you and have more life experience, so I have no interest in approval from someone who lives in a fishbowl and thinks he knows everything without bothering to learn anything new....regardless of the topic.

Unfortunately I have seen your future in my brother who is bitter at our parents,

I'll pull the plug here, since this statement should have tripped a light inside your head as soon as you typed it out. Why would you assume that every family is like yours? That's the kind of reasoning I would expect from a 4 year old!

My family was very dysfunctional, and so are many others who've had to look elsewhere to find role models for a better life. Some of us are successful at re-inventing the wheel - having a good marriage and raising our children in a better climate; but all too many repeat the mistakes of previous generations whether or not they recognize that their homelife could be better. My father thought his father was the right role model, and being an abusive tyrant was the natural way to run a household. My wife's nephew, whom we took in during his teenage years, hated his father, but despite my warnings and best efforts, is repeating all the mistakes of last generation -- so every situation is different.....and you should already have the wisdom to realize that if you're an adult.

[sharkman]

Anyone who openly admits on a forum of all things that they hate their father's guts, and calls their own family by all kinds of names has some deep issues. No doubt some psychology prof is using it to breathe life into today's lecture. I now pity you since I understand where your anger at christianity comes from, but sooner or later you have to admit you are dysfunctional and forgive yourself.

Edited May 29, 2009 by sharkman