Why Were Women Happier Before?

[bush_cheney2004]

And we are likely to be swamped by the spillover effect of illegal immigration that is reducing the U.S. to Third World status.....

As opposed to the "spillover effect" from both illegal and legal immigration from Canada to the United States.

Canada is a stepping stone for many.

...good grief.....

[benny]

As opposed to the "spillover effect" from both illegal and legal immigration from Canada to the United States.

Canada is a stepping stone for many.

...good grief.....

Given birth to white babies in order to have more border guards for the next generation!?

Edited June 5, 2009 by benny

[JerrySeinfeld]

I walk around downtown and I see two things:

Men who are trying to figurre out how to earn a buck, and probably worrying aobut how to pay for kids' tuition and retirement down the road.

And women, who largely are passing the time working until they get married and pregnant.

Sure, there are always exceptions. But that's generally the case.

All those left wingers who are hell bent on teaching darwin in schools should maybe drink some of their own koolaid.

Edited June 5, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[benny]

I walk around downtown and I see two things:

Men who are trying to figurre out how to earn a buck, and probably worrying aobut how to pay for kids' tuition and retirement down the road.

And women, who largely are passing the time working until they get married and pregnant.

Sure, there are always exceptions. But that's generally the case.

All those left wingers who are hell bent on teaching darwin in schools should maybe drink some of their own koolaid.

I see people walking with their children-replacing dogs.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I see people walking with their children-replacing dogs.

Hey, it's basically the same thing I'm saying: these days since women are supposed to act like men, they don't have time for kids so they get dogs.

[benny]

Hey, it's basically the same thing I'm saying: these days since women are supposed to act like men, they don't have time for kids so they get dogs.

I see men with children-replacing dog-replacing big toys (bikes, cars, etc.).

[Bonam]

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!

I was just reading this thread and this statement kind of stood out to me. Just about any woman I know would be/is immensely glad if a man is great with kids. They literally light up in joy when they see the dad having a good time together with the kids, family bonding. When a man and a woman are raising a family together, it's not a competition, but cooperation, and they both should be (and from what I have seen, are) glad to see each other succeeding in that role.

It is only couples that are falling apart, in which any affection for each other has long since faded, that there could be any genuine bitterness on the part of one partner over the other's skill at interacting with their children.

Anyway, raising kids was never exclusively the role of women. Men have participated in the raising of their children (sons especially) since ancient, and, almost certainly, prehistoric times.

[benny]

I was just reading this thread and this statement kind of stood out to me. Just about any woman I know would be/is immensely glad if a man is great with kids. They literally light up in joy when they see the dad having a good time together with the kids, family bonding. When a man and a woman are raising a family together, it's not a competition, but cooperation, and they both should be (and from what I have seen, are) glad to see each other succeeding in that role.

It is only couples that are falling apart, in which any affection for each other has long since faded, that there could be any genuine bitterness on the part of one partner over the other's skill at interacting with their children.

Anyway, raising kids was never exclusively the role of women. Men have participated in the raising of their children (sons especially) since ancient, and, almost certainly, prehistoric times.

What I hear on my side is that the mother and father have often opposite education philosophies so that they end up in some kind of competition. Also, since the women more than men anticipate that, after divorces, they will end up with their children, they often seem to prepare themselves to do all the rearing tasks by themselves.

[Oleg Bach]

What I hear on my side is that the mother and father have often opposite education philosophies so that they end up in some kind of competition. Also, since the women more than men anticipate that, after divorces, they will end up with their children, they often seem to prepare themselves to do all the rearing tasks by themselves.

Once you have children - both father and mother should be committed for at least the next 25 years to a unified protection and rearing of the children - long into adult hood.. those that divorce are weaklings - and the state just loves to remove the male heads of families - and IF the woman is highly intelligent and "non-compliant" the state is not above attacking and attempting to destroy the female also.

[benny]

Once you have children - both father and mother should be committed for at least the next 25 years to a unified protection and rearing of the children - long into adult hood.. those that divorce are weaklings - and the state just loves to remove the male heads of families - and IF the woman is highly intelligent and "non-compliant" the state is not above attacking and attempting to destroy the female also.

"It takes a whole village to raise a child". Unfortunately, men are too much attracted by merely labor camps.

[capricorn]

Margaret Wente has an interesting piece in today's Globe.

If we're so equal, why aren't we happy?

For women, the desire to have it all comes with the obligation to do it all

----

If women have made such stupendous progress, then why aren't we happier?

This is the interesting terrain explored in a recent study called The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. They found that over the past generation, women's self-reported happiness has decreased, both absolutely and relative to men. In spite of Ms. Friedan, women in the era of The Feminine Mystique typically reported greater subjective well-being than men did. But as their lives improved, their mood got worse. Today, the happiness gender gap has reversed. Neither men nor women are as happy as they used to be, but women are now distinctly unhappier than men. This trend holds true across all demographic groups and all Western industrialized nations.

Why? Before some troglodyte concludes that women were better off barefoot in the kitchen, let me point out that measuring comparative happiness over time is a slippery proposition. The authors say as much. Maybe my grandma's generation's idea of “happiness” was much different from ours, in which case comparisons may not be all that meaningful.

It is also true that factors other than the obvious ones contribute in important ways to human happiness. For example, as countries get richer, there's not much evidence that people get happier. Fragmenting families, increased mobility, and the decline of organized religion mean that people are far freer from social constraints to strike out on their own path. But that also means that the glue that bound us together has dissolved. Liberation has a downside.

For women, the desire to have it all comes with the obligation to do it all. In other words, we need to accomplish much, much more than ever before in order to be happy. Now that we are liberated to compete with everyone, we compete with all the guys for the next promotion, and compete with Angelina Jolie to look really sexy, and compete with every other mom to be the perfect parent, and compete with Mother Teresa to be compassionate and good.

Naturally, we can never measure up.

----

So who fares best in the happiness sweepstakes? The same group that always has - married men. Although both men and women report less satisfaction with their marriages than people did a generation ago (rising expectations again?), women say they are more dissatisfied than men. I don't think this is because husbands have gotten worse. (Au contraire - they have become spectacularly better in some areas, such as parenting and time spent on housework.) I think it's because women have a genetically hard-wired sense of responsibility. They have always been responsible for the nurturing and emotional heavy lifting. And now, they're responsible for their careers and half the family finances as well.

Even so, I doubt you'd find many women who want to turn back the clock. I can't imagine swapping my stress-filled, aggravating life for grandma's, even if she was happier than I am. Besides, happiness can be highly overrated.

Or maybe it's the case that women never have been all that happy. Maybe the cave women gazed across the roasting mastodon at their mates 50,000 years ago and wondered, “Is this all?” Maybe we have always wondered that. It's just that now, we feel free to say it out loud.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinio...article1180751/

I was never tempted to compare my notion of happiness with my mother's or my grandmother's. This would have been futile since the benchmarks for a woman's happiness have changed radically over time. But in our quest to be the best at all that we endeavour, in setting priorities, some things necessarily take a back seat. It is only later in life that, through soul searching, can we determine individually whether those priorities were right or wrong for us and those we love.

Edited June 13, 2009 by capricorn

[benny]

We live in a society where happiness is rapidly becoming, through mass media advertisements specially, an obligation to fulfill. Since women much more than men value a notion of self-sacrifice that requires a kind of nothingness, they have harder time to cope.

http://books.google.com/books?id=O0Q6Bnx7R...num=7#PPT155,M1

Edited June 13, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

We live in a society where happiness is rapidly becoming, through mass media advertisements specially, an obligation to fulfill. Since women much more than men value a notion of self-sacrifice that requires a kind of nothingness, they have harder time to cope.

http://books.google.com/books?id=O0Q6Bnx7R...num=7#PPT155,M1

The more I avoid media - the happier I become...my happiness does not come from what is told to me by others - it comes from what I know of my world through what I have discoverd privately with out the inflicted assistance of media - I don't give a crap about media - nor governmental programs that some men and woman fall into - My X-wife (well sort of) is about to join a womans group..frankly I know one thing about such groups - they are for woman that have no husbands...it's kind of an insult - if she wants some happiness - let her come to me instead of hanging out with these failures...

[kimmy]

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

At least we're together on that much. Sadly, it seems as if many women seem to think it is not a joke but a matter of justice.

I do not agree that breaking with tradition is all roses; with the sense that 'girl jobs' have no value anyway;

I don't think I've ever said "girl jobs" don't have any value. The jobs themselves have value, or they wouldn't exist.

However, the *idea* of "girl jobs" has to go. If one wants women (as a group) to earn more (as a group), the answer is not to artificially boost the salary of "girl jobs" through some kind of government intervention, but to get women (as a group) to pick better-paying careers.

or with your sense of the purity of the meritocracy within the 'boy' milieu.

There's no such thing as a complete meritocracy. There is always politics and favoritism. Personally, however, my sense is that gender plays much less of a role in that than some would have us believe. When I observe non-performance-related prejudice and bias against a worker, it's invariably because he's got an abrasive personality, an entitled attitude, poor personal hygiene, or that sort of thing.

I wouldn't even go so far as to be sure of the gender of who might undermine or ignore your merit!

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the gender of those who try to undermine me and "put me in my place" in my life, Molly, and I assure you, it's not men.

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

And again, I feel the only thing keeping a young woman out of traditionally male fields is the barrier between her ears.

-k

[kimmy]

Sure has. These days I don't have to channel surf long before I can find a woman slapping a man in the face, punching him in the face, dumping a drink on a man, throwing his stuff on the lawn, throwing plates at a man...etc. Mostly in the name of "comedy".

What do you mean "these days", Jerry? This stuff has been considered big comedy since the moving picture was invented.

By contrast, I assert that the sensationalization of sexual violence in both entertainment and news reportage is much more recent. And, accordingly, a reason why women may be more worried about their personal safety than they might have been 30 years ago.

I doubt television has men more worried that they'll encounter a Three Stooges eye-poke than they were 30 years ago. However, I think women are probably more worried that they could be raped than they were 30 years ago.

Of course, if you reversed the roles in any of the above, it would be held out by the "women's" movement (read - loser academics with nothing better to do with their time) as the perpetuation of "violence" against women.

You can't have it both ways: this kind of entertainment is either silly or violent, not both depending upon who happens to be bearing the brunt.

If you wish to make some effort to parallel sit-com slapstick with the increasingly graphic sexual violence that now passes for mainstream entertainment, perhaps you should start another thread on the topic.

-k

[Oleg Bach]

What do you mean "these days", Jerry? This stuff has been considered big comedy since the moving picture was invented.

By contrast, I assert that the sensationalization of sexual violence in both entertainment and news reportage is much more recent. And, accordingly, a reason why women may be more worried about their personal safety than they might have been 30 years ago.

I doubt television has men more worried that they'll encounter a Three Stooges eye-poke than they were 30 years ago. However, I think women are probably more worried that they could be raped than they were 30 years ago.

If you wish to make some effort to parallel sit-com slapstick with the increasingly graphic sexual violence that now passes for mainstream entertainment, perhaps you should start another thread on the topic.

-k

Sex and violence do not mix in the natural world or the devine...one is life and one creates death - but we are a preverse society...and sex and guns are some how married together - talk about confused.

[benny]

The more I avoid media - the happier I become...my happiness does not come from what is told to me by others - it comes from what I know of my world through what I have discoverd privately with out the inflicted assistance of media - I don't give a crap about media - nor governmental programs that some men and woman fall into - My X-wife (well sort of) is about to join a womans group..frankly I know one thing about such groups - they are for woman that have no husbands...it's kind of an insult - if she wants some happiness - let her come to me instead of hanging out with these failures...

Your efforts to save your ego are all too symptomatic of our world where our unconscious desires are becoming one with advertisers' superego.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/...01?crawler=true

[Oleg Bach]

Your efforts to save your ego are all too symptomatic of our world where our unconscious desires are becoming one with advertisers' superego.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/...01?crawler=true

I don't have to save anything - and my "ego" is not super - I have none - being in a state of reality must really irk you and devalue your hard won education. To bad for you _ If I mention when I hold my un-happy seperated wife in my arms - she is happy - it has nothing to do with being egotistical - I love those I hold and love heals...Those that are healed are happy - those that are sick seek sympathy or someone to suffer with them _ I am not into useless suffering - and frown upon those that choose to suffer. As far as effort benny - I have a saying -"anything worth fighting for is not worth having"...there is no effort - it's effortless - but to the less fortunate it's a struggle I am sure. Putting in my time and enduring the world for almost 60 years has left me strong...and fearless....we are all going to expire -eventually - so what's the fuss? Time to enjoy this heaven and maybe you should de-educate yourself? "Unconscious desires are becoming one with advertisers super ego" That means nothing to me....if it is "unconscious" then it does not exist..

[benny]

I don't have to save anything - and my "ego" is not super - I have none - being in a state of reality must really irk you and devalue your hard won education. To bad for you _ If I mention when I hold my un-happy seperated wife in my arms - she is happy - it has nothing to do with being egotistical - I love those I hold and love heals...Those that are healed are happy - those that are sick seek sympathy or someone to suffer with them _ I am not into useless suffering - and frown upon those that choose to suffer. As far as effort benny - I have a saying -"anything worth fighting for is not worth having"...there is no effort - it's effortless - but to the less fortunate it's a struggle I am sure. Putting in my time and enduring the world for almost 60 years has left me strong...and fearless....we are all going to expire -eventually - so what's the fuss? Time to enjoy this heaven and maybe you should de-educate yourself? "Unconscious desires are becoming one with advertisers super ego" That means nothing to me....if it is "unconscious" then it does not exist..

A morbid complacency is the hallmark of almost all your posts.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes - I live like it's the last day of my life - of course I am morbid..because I know one thing for sure - our bodies no matter how good the genetics will fade to ghosts and then disapate...in the mean time give me a kiss..

[benny]

"While men sacrifice themselves for a Thing (country, freedom, honor), only women are able to sacrifice themselves for nothing. And it is our contention that this "empty" sacrifice is the Christian gesture par excellence: it is only against the background of this empty gesture that one can begin to appreciate the uniqueness of the figure of Christ." (Slavoj Zizek)

http://www.lacan.com/zizek-love.htm

[August1991]

Capricorn, thanks for that link to Wente's article:

I think it's because women have a genetically hard-wired sense of responsibility. They have always been responsible for the nurturing and emotional heavy lifting. And now, they're responsible for their careers and half the family finances as well.

Even so, I doubt you'd find many women who want to turn back the clock. I can't imagine swapping my stress-filled, aggravating life for grandma's, even if she was happier than I am. Besides, happiness can be highly overrated.

I have thought about this question and looked quickly through this thread. I still don't know but I disagree with Wente in one sense. People are richer now and can more easily (in general) assume responsibility. So, I don't buy that part of her argument.

Instead, I'll go with the second part and return to my original idea of demographics. I suspect that Wente would prefer to swap her current self for (perhaps not her grandmother) but herself thirty years ago.

IOW, I think younger women are happier than older women or said differently, I think women prefer to be young. Since there are more older women now (and there were more younger women before), this survey is just capturing the demographic change in western society.

Moreover, both men and women may prefer to be young but I think this is more pronounced for women.

[Oleg Bach]

That's a bunch of crap - "hard wired sense of responsiblity" - ? Get real - men and woman are hard wired exactly the same - some short out and some don't and some have no wires leading no where...that's sexist stuff is tiresome - men and woman are exactly the same - except woman have a much nicer shape...

[cybercoma]

And again, I feel the only thing keeping a young woman out of traditionally male fields is the barrier between her ears.

How do those thoughts and ideas get there in the first place? It would be naive to think that there isn't social programming going on that limits the freedom of women to do anything they want. In fact, that programming works on a deeper level pigeon-holing women into wanting less than they are capable of achieving.

[cybercoma]

I think younger women are happier than older women

Because beauty is the capital of women. Men have become more burdened with this over the last decade, but still are not held back if they are not beautiful the way women are.