Why Were Women Happier Before?

[WIP]

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.

Any violence is too much violence. You seem to think there is an acceptable level of wife-beating for some reason! And it is impossible to determine how much of the increase in domestic violence reports are due to a real increase in violence, and how much is due to increased reporting of abuse by women....since, if you were around 30 or 40 years ago, you should already have figured that these were all things that were never spoken of until the cops were called. But, for some reason you want to accept a study based on subjective, self-reporting data on "happiness" as authoritative! To me, this indicates that you want women reduced to their previous status and will accept any evidence that coincides with your desires.

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.

Which sounds suspiciously like you are sympathetic with the men who do hit back...otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the subject. Before you find your ass in jail some night, I should point out that, by law, even if you are attacked out on the street by a total stranger, you are only authorized to use the force necessary to repel the attacker; you are not allowed to beat the shit out of him for provoking you! And if his lawyer discovers that you have had any significant martial arts training, assault with a deadly weapon could be added to the list.

The point is, unless a woman is equal in size and strength, the man should be capable of defending himself without injuring her. Afterwards, they can discuss marriage counseling or divorce, or whatever....but the "she was asking for it" defense does not have any merit.

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.

The question shouldn't be about whether or not they consider themselves "happy." Not many people have the luxury of being happy and carefree in these times; since this survey has been jumped on by conservatives who are arguing for women being removed from the workplace, the question should be "whether they would be happier being forced to give up their jobs?"

And the women on maternity leave who hate their jobs...well lots of men say they hate their jobs too; but that doesn't qualify as a good argument to cut maternity-leave benefits since raising the next generation of children properly is a shared benefit to society, and should not be the exclusive burden of the parents. If there was also a national daycare system like they have in France, there would be a greater incentive for middle class families to have children....instead of all of the incentives going to the underclass on social assistance.

[WIP]

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.

Isn't this what you were just doing, regarding your brother.....hypocrite! You obviously follow the authoritarian dictates of commandment to "honour thy father and thy mother," regardless of the circumstances....which used to carry the penalty of being stoned to death; but I don't. And I have mentioned that I had to go far beyond recognizing I was given a bad example....I had to do a lot of work to be a good husband and father. My bitterness towards my father is in the past, since he's been dead for 12 years now. My main grievance is that he never developed the wisdom or foresight to do things differently than the way he was taught. Like you, he believed that whatever he was taught, must have been the right way.

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.

I am glad you could at least figure that out, since I specifically referenced that point with betsy! I am honest about the fact that my personal experience colours my attitude about the churches we attended, and Christianity in general; but you, on the other hand, are not open about the fact that your blind obedience to religion and religious authority connects with the hero worship of your father -- which is how the three Abrahamic religions started in the first place....as the exaltation of an important tribal patriarch back in the Bronze Age.

[sharkman]

Isn't this what you were just doing, regarding your brother.....hypocrite! You obviously follow the authoritarian dictates of commandment to "honour thy father and thy mother," regardless of the circumstances....which used to carry the penalty of being stoned to death; but I don't. And I have mentioned that I had to go far beyond recognizing I was given a bad example....I had to do a lot of work to be a good husband and father. My bitterness towards my father is in the past, since he's been dead for 12 years now. My main grievance is that he never developed the wisdom or foresight to do things differently than the way he was taught. Like you, he believed that whatever he was taught, must have been the right way.

Now you are trying to project your hatred and bitterness on me? No thanks, I never said I hate my brother's guts nor did I call him any names. You have to face reality, friend. Your inner demons begin and end with you. Finger pointing won't change that.

I am glad you could at least figure that out, since I specifically referenced that point with betsy! I am honest about the fact that my personal experience colours my attitude about the churches we attended, and Christianity in general; but you, on the other hand, are not open about the fact that your blind obedience to religion and religious authority connects with the hero worship of your father -- which is how the three Abrahamic religions started in the first place....as the exaltation of an important tribal patriarch back in the Bronze Age.

I'm afraid you don't know enough about the faith I follow nor the churches I've attended to make informed judgements. I've also never spoken of my father in hero terms unlike you who hate yours, so it's obvious it's more likely that you hate yours than I worship mine. At least you are thinking about fathers now, if only we could get around to where you forgive yours and yourself.

Edited May 29, 2009 by sharkman

[WIP]

Now you are trying to project your hatred and bitterness on me? No thanks, I never said I hate my brother's guts nor did I call him any names. You have to face reality, friend. Your inner demons begin and end with you. Finger pointing won't change that.

We are products of genetics and the life experiences we have. The only point I can agree with is that a person must have a desire to change and be capable of some self-examination. Some can change their lives for the better, whereas others cannot apparently. But, now you have a taste of what projecting feels like, since you have no way of knowing how I live my life.

I'm afraid you don't know enough about the faith I follow nor the churches I've attended to make informed judgements. I've also never spoken of my father in hero terms unlike you who hate yours, so it's obvious it's more likely that you hate yours than I worship mine. At least you are thinking about fathers now, if only we could get around to where you forgive yours and yourself.

I think more of forgetting and moving on, and I never intended that comment to someone else to be used to remind me constantly of my past. As for religion, I acknowledged that my experience prejudices my attitude towards this kind of religion, but on the other side, the human physical, mental and emotional qualities of the God of Abraham. describes a classic patriarch of a long, lost time, and that's why later prophets, New Testament authors, and theologians over the past 2000 years, have strained to change the description of their god, from an anthropomorphic god/king to a supernatural spirit that permeates the Universe.

[WIP]

I forgot to try to get back on topic. You got my attention when you posted this callous dismissal of some stats that cybercoma posted on violence against women, as a reminder primarily to men, that there are many problems women specifically are faced with that men do not have to:

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

[

So, what was that supposed to mean? That violence against women should not be discussed.....just like it was back in the good old days.

[sharkman]

Oh, I had assumed that you opposed my disagreement with use of the rape card in a thread on womens' happiness just because I made it. Actually I still believe that, because rape or abortion or murder are off topic on the subject matter at hand, and are only used to score cheap points. Since I already know you will disagree with this and give a mini-essay on the modern woman/rape/abortion/murder/unhappiness, I suggest that you not bother on my account since I won't be reading it. I want to know why women were happier before.

[Oleg Bach]

Woman who embrace womanhood with pride and dignity are the most happy..those that partook in social experimentation are now in their 50s - living with two cats and a dog - and they are not happy.

[jdobbin]

Woman who embrace womanhood with pride and dignity are the most happy..those that partook in social experimentation are now in their 50s - living with two cats and a dog - and they are not happy.

Was our wife always happy? if not, why not?

Edited May 30, 2009 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

Woman who embrace womanhood with pride and dignity are the most happy..those that partook in social experimentation are now in their 50s - living with two cats and a dog - and they are not happy.

You know, I think this explains things as well as anything I've read on this thread yet.

[Oleg Bach]

You know, I think this explains things as well as anything I've read on this thread yet.

My mum was a 50s style feminist - she made money - bought properties - wore fine clothes and was respected//that's a happy woman- and she never once blamed a man or considered them oppressive - she did not pay attention to stupid men - she petted them on the head and sent them on their way..she was happy being a mother - a matriarch - and sexy creative woman - she would consider todays woman cowards - woman that were slaves hated her - because she was brave and free - she could love - and she could destroy you - depended if it was in her and her families best interest - and if some pediphile arrived at the beach - she held no punches - she would wack him on the head with a broom and send him on his way - others stood silent and potilcally correct - she was totally politically incorrect - and politicals loved her.

[Argus]

Any violence is too much violence. You seem to think there is an acceptable level of wife-beating for some reason!

What the hell is it you're babbling about? Do you even know? I guarantee you nobody else here does.

Which sounds suspiciously like you are sympathetic with the men who do hit back...otherwise yo

blah blah blah blah

Eeyore! Eeyore! Eeyore!

The sound of an ass braying into the wind.

The question shouldn't be about whether or not they consider themselves "happy

Good thing that wasn't the question. The question was whether women were happier back when they were expected to be homemakers, as opposed to now when they're expected to be career women. Why don't you try addressing that instead of snivelling about how evil men are.

[kimmy]

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. )

I did once have to use kim-jitsu on a temp who became hostile after I told him to put away his cell-phone and do some work. He didn't last long. I suspect he'd have been a tremendously crappy employee for a male supervisor as well.

Regardless, that's an issue of workplace standards and/or employment discrimination law, not a justification for "equal pay for work of equal value".

In fact, I would go so far as to say that "equal pay for work of equal value" is a big fat slap in the face to those of us who *have* braved the world of "men's work".

Additionally, it would undermine the whole point. Because if "girl jobs" paid just as much as "men's work", then what's the incentive to even try? If you remove the money incentive, you're removing a major incentive for women to venture out of "girl jobs". If that happens, then the concept of "girl jobs" and "men's work" will never disappear.

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.

Well, people who choose courageous, risky, difficult, or unconventional paths in life are often those who reap the greatest rewards.

Those who take the path of least resistance (whether that resistance comes in the form of hard academic work, peer pressure, financial hardship, changing location, or whatever) are often those who find themselves sitting around wondering why others have gotten more out of life.

I think we both recognize that the big barrier keeping women out of science and technology and technical fields is within women themselves. It is certainly unfortunate that most young women look at these career choices and think "that sounds boring" or "that sounds hard" or "that's for nerds".

However, that is no reason for the state to intervene in some ridiculous, artificial way as "equal pay for work of equal value" advocates call for.

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.

I once spent a whole work-day repairing a receptionist's computer after it had become so infected with spyware, adware, trojan horses, and so-on that it was no longer functional. People generally do not get this sort of malware from visiting websites that most people consider to be central to doing business.

I work in a hazardous, strenuous environment that can and does result in injuries and deaths. The only injury she's likely to suffer would come from trying to stuff herself into her size-too-small slacks, tripping while strutting about in high heels trying to catch peoples' attention, or if the water-cooler falls over on her.

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.

So, to make a long story short, you agree with me.

-k

[kimmy]

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

Yes. Trust me, I know of what I speak.

-k

[kimmy]

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.

I think that is largely the case! I certainly can't vouch for everyone, but personally I've seen little evidence of woman haters who've tried to undermine me. I've certainly encountered skeptics, people who've doubted my strength or abilities. They're usually the easiest to impress, in my experience.

I quickly proved that I could exceed my male peers (which, frankly, only required being able to show up each day, on-time, and not stoned or drunk ) and have had no unfavorable experiences since.

I do feel some amount of pressure to maintain the impression. One time some plastic sheeting slid out from under my feet as I was walking; I went flying base-over-apex and landed on my back... as much as it really hurt, all I allowed myself was to swear about it and laugh... because I couldn't let the guys see me cry. Just couldn't happen.

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,

yep!

white,

yep!

green,

waitaminit

have 3 breasts and 2 penises.

whoa.

-k

[kimmy]

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

I'm guessing professional sports might be one.

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.

While the actual incidence of violence may not have increased, it seems like reportage of it has increased. It seems like both news and entertainment have sensationalized violence, particularly sexual violence, in a way that it probably wasn't 40 years ago.

-k

Edited May 30, 2009 by kimmy

[kimmy]

An additional thought on the premise of this question...

I recall once reading a criticism of the MacLean's Universities Rankings studies that comes out every year. The critic of the study was the dean of some prestigious institution, and he questioned the methodology of the rankings based on the amount that students' self-assessment factors into the rankings. Top-notch institutions tend to attract demanding students, he said.

Basically, he was pointing out that students at the most prestigious institutions are harder to please. At lesser colleges, the students are happy just to be in college! Of course they think their school is great! They're lucky that they're not at the Lucy Jameson Academy of Hair and Nails Technology or the DynoWut Computer School getting a 3 month diploma in computer literacy. And they can't believe how awesome it is to go to a school that has A BAR right on the school grounds! How gnarly is that!!

At top schools, the students are likely to be the ones who look at the laboratories and find the equipment is outdated, or that the software they're learning is no longer used in industry, or that the teaching assistant in their class isn't much help to anybody who can't speak Farsi, and that sort of thing. "I busted my ass to get the grades to get into this school! And *this* is what I get? I should have gone to frickin McGill!!!"

I suspect women today may also be more demanding than their moms. I know that my own mom was reasonably satisfied just to live in a house that had an actual flush-toilet and a husband who could afford to keep the liquor cabinet stocked (although, if you know my mom, you know that's no mean feat.)

Me, I'm not as easy to impress. That might not always be a good thing.

-k

[cybercoma]

The point is, unless a woman is equal in size and strength, the man should be capable of defending himself without injuring her. Afterwards, they can discuss marriage counseling or divorce, or whatever....but the "she was asking for it" defense does not have any merit.

It should be noted that police do in fact arrest the wives when they are the aggressor in domestic disputes. I have enough friends that work for police forces all over this country to tell you that it does happen. The fact that I wanted to point out is that it happens much less against the husband as it does against the wife.

Argus says there's no evidence of that happening any more today than it did before, so it's irrelevant. My point was that women had hope for a brighter future because groups of them were fighting for equality. Feminists were bringing attention to the issues. Today, when a person speaks of women's rights, they're looked at as being some kind of "femi-nazi" or "militant lesbian". The difference today is that hope has been robbed from women. The fight has been stolen away from them and turned against them to keep them in their place.

And what about The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf? Has anyone in this thread even read that book? Only recently has the fashion and beauty industry turned its sights on men. And even then, the advertisements are comedic (see: Axe). It has been women for decades that have been foul, disgusting wenches that needed to consume beauty products to be successful in life. Women have been targeted and made to feel that no matter what they are not good enough. Men don't need to get cosmetic surgery or ridiculous amounts of time dieting, applying make-up, getting tanned, keeping up with fashion trends, etc. to be successful. People may like to think that these things don't play a factor, but they do. The subjugation of women in society is insidious. We're part of a system and we perpetuate it without being aware that we are in it. Like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, people will fight the awareness even when someone has seen the light. So, with the fight taken away from women, and people being resistant to awareness, it's no wonder women are less happy now than they have been.

[cybercoma]

Yes. Trust me, I know of what I speak.

-k

Watch daytime television all day. All those people you see on Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, and the court shows, they buy stuff. Amidst dealing with that, there is a never ending stream of mind-numbing, tedious physical work that needs to be accomplished.

Retail is not the most skilled job, and to say that they do little to no work is not only wrong, it's demeaning to those that actually do their jobs well.

[WIP]

What the hell is it you're babbling about? Do you even know? I guarantee you nobody else here does.

Which sounds suspiciously like you are sympathetic with the men who do hit back...otherwise yo

Wow! That's a pretty lameass attempt at blame-shifting. Let's step into the wayback machine and see who's the misogynist here:

QUOTE (Argus @ May 29 2009, 09:55 AM) *

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.

QUOTE

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.

So, violence towards women is irrelevant and you think it's okay if it is determined that the woman initiated the fight.

Good thing that wasn't the question. The question was whether women were happier back when they were expected to be homemakers, as opposed to now when they're expected to be career women. Why don't you try addressing that instead of snivelling about how evil men are.

Okay sniveller, your question contains the answer within the same sentence! If women were "expected" to be homemakers, that already implies a lack of opportunity, which is not an ingredient for happiness.

Are women "expected" to be career women now? By whom? And even if this example is true, there are thousands of potential careers to choose from that may provide satisfying and meaningful work. Housewife does not contain similar options, and more importantly, it does not offer and independent source of income! The housewife has to rely on the benevolence and generosity of her husband for spending money.....but I guess that equals freedom and happiness in the upside down world of conservative thought.

[Oleg Bach]

Woman were happier in by gone days for the same reason - slaves loved chains and Polar bears love being in a zoo - security...

[WIP]

It should be noted that police do in fact arrest the wives when they are the aggressor in domestic disputes. I have enough friends that work for police forces all over this country to tell you that it does happen. The fact that I wanted to point out is that it happens much less against the husband as it does against the wife.

Right. There are always exceptions, but the exception does not prove the rule.

Argus says there's no evidence of that happening any more today than it did before, so it's irrelevant. My point was that women had hope for a brighter future because groups of them were fighting for equality. Feminists were bringing attention to the issues. Today, when a person speaks of women's rights, they're looked at as being some kind of "femi-nazi" or "militant lesbian".

It's just mindless conservativ rhetoric. Rush Limbaugh started the feminazi slur, and his minions have picked it up and are still running with it, even though these are the same people who claim that when leftists compare them to nazis, they are trivializing the Holocaust!

Liberals and progressives have lost the battle of words by spending all their time fighting the brushfires of rightwing accusations against them, instead of calling out the conservatives for their use of fear, racism, nationalism, and obedience to God and earthly authorities (conservative authorities that is) to move us further down the road to an authoritarian oligarchy, where the wealthiest 1% of the population make the rules and govern to protect their own narrow interests.

And what about The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf? Has anyone in this thread even read that book?

I've heard the title, and heard of the author, but I don't know anything about the book.

Only recently has the fashion and beauty industry turned its sights on men. And even then, the advertisements are comedic (see: Axe).

Oh, I can tell you about that one! Because of the saturation media campaign for that Axe crap, my 16 year old son buys everything with the Axe brand name on it, and won't use anything else....I did like their first media blitz, with the Axe Bootcamp girls though....but I wasn't motivated to run out pay three times the price for their deodorant! And I guess that's why advertisers really hammer away at the teen and preteen market.

It has been women for decades that have been foul, disgusting wenches that needed to consume beauty products to be successful in life. Women have been targeted and made to feel that no matter what they are not good enough.

Even the household cleaning products seems to like to play upon the average woman's fears that her house or clothes may not be as clean as they should be! But I'm not sure if anything can be done to stop marketers from turning us into a bunch of neurotic consumers of worthless, overpriced junk. In a free society, the individual consumer still has to accept most of the burden for their buying decisions.

[Oleg Bach]

Obedient to earthly authorities" Ha - you have that right - these new-conservatives are very obedient to their bosses - who are not elected officals - but the money boys in Montreal - and Toronto.

[Molly]

So, to make a long story short, you agree with me.

-k

I agree that 'equal pay for work of equal value' is a bit of a joke.

I do not agree that breaking with tradition is all roses; with the sense that 'girl jobs' have no value anyway; or with your sense of the purity of the meritocracy within the 'boy' milieu. I wouldn't even go so far as to be sure of the gender of who might undermine or ignore your merit!

But even if the meritocracy IS that pure, entry must be achieved before you can show your stuff and have the meritocracy applied.

[Borg]

Woman who embrace womanhood with pride and dignity are the most happy..those that partook in social experimentation are now in their 50s - living with two cats and a dog - and they are not happy.

And in many cases - oh so very alone - drove the kids and the husband away while demanding special considerations rather than partnering with their spouse

Borg

[cybercoma]

Let's consider that women are in the workplace now, thanks to second wave feminism, yet they still contribute a disproportionate amount of hours to unpaid labour in the home: cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, etc.