If feminism is so great then how come womens happiness decreases proportionally to feminists prominence in society?

If feminism is so great then how come womens happiness decreases proportionally to feminists prominence in society?

Other urls found in this thread:

wsj.com/articles/SB113314261192407815
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I don't think anyone except feminists themselves think feminism is great

feminisms prominence in society

Maybe you got it backwards and its unhappy women that end up being feminists in an attempt to improve their lot

What the hell happened in 1995?

Homicide rates started falling really fast and a lot of places became way safer to live in.

After the Cold War, everyone realized modernity was still shit.

It's like this. Inb4 men try and explain women's feelings like they know what they're talking about.

Reverse causality doesn't exist because muh bias

>women actually thought that being a housewife was oppression so they decided to be poverty ridden single moms working two jobs instead

Deserve it tee bh

The internet abd the 24 hour news cycle

How do you measure total happiness?

axiomatic goods like health, liberty, autonomy, maintenance of basic emotional needs, etc.

Nobody is happy in a job.

I mean, most humans didn't have a job until, like, a century ago. People can tell jobs are traps.

>Maybe you got it backwards and its unhappy women that end up being feminists in an attempt to improve their lot

I think his point is not that feminist women are unhappier (which they probably are, by the way), but that the end result of their work was not happier women.

Isn't that very arbitrary? And what is the difference between liberty and autonomy?

Many of them aren't really feminist to start with. They hear about it some place, and on the moment it sounds reasonable. They do like all their other friends, they get a corporate job, and then a child, and at some point they are burned.

In the end, they do a mediocre job at their career, but also in raising their kid(s).

I don't think every woman has this burning desire to do it all. I'm sure many do it because they don't know any better in their most important young adult days. Woman have a stronger tendency to follow and mimic than men, it seems.

The problem isn't feminism in itself, it's the overvaluation of work, production and money that crept its way into our cultures after the industrial revolution. The traditional roles of women lost in importance in people's mind, because everything that seemed to matter was to gain wealth as a non-noble individual.
There once was a time where women didn't feel shame from a life of child caring, and they did a good job at it. Children grew up strong and fully developped. Boys became men of virtues, and girls became caring and humane women.

Nowadays our children are alienated, young men are dead inside and women don't feel any shame getting away with an entitled, crybaby attitude.

We're all feminists now. Or do you think women shouldn't be permitted to have a job or to vote?

Women should be stay at home moms once they have kids. Voting is questionable. The "separate spheres" argument has credit.

When you identify the One True Good Above All Others, please get back to me.

the difference in liberty and autonomy is the difference between the state and the society.

This is the real answer and it's pretty obvious, but this thread will just be an /r9k/ circlejerk anyway.

>When you identify the One True Good Above All Others, please get back to me.
Well, you should be the one doing this, since you are the one trying to define who is happier.

>the difference in liberty and autonomy is the difference between the state and the society.
Explain.

Parents should stay at home when they have young children, definitely.

Capitalism doesn't really allow for that.

Funny, cause it did up until the 2960s when women decided they loved careers more than kids. Having a working wife was a sign of poverty.

1960s fug

If women want to have a career or to vote, they should be allowed to. But the culture shouldn't shame women who don't want to enjoy those activities. It's not an active shaming, it's subtle, but it's there. Women today who desire a traditional lifestyle tend to be marginalized.

University departments that force admission of 50% women for the sake of equality are ludicrous. News flash, girls are biologically less likely to be interested in technical, objective fields. If a girl is though, I don't see why she should be kept away from such an opportunity.

But if there were more mothers at home, children would benefit, and I'm sure many of our problems would go away after 1 or 2 generations. There wouldn't be so much people on pills. Network of women helping one another and doing good for the whole community would become a thing again.

They didn't decide that, taxes and expenses went up faster than wages, so it was impossible for families to survive on one income.

The ideal is that men and women get to choose whether to work at a job, or at home, or in their community, or in a business of their own, or whatever. It's not like men and women got that and now want more, this has never been the case for any but the most wealthy in any society.

>There once was a time where women didn't feel shame from a life of child caring, and they did a good job at it

They were strongly shamed for doing anything else.

It is possible to survive on one income, for most people. It is not possible to survive on one income and having all the superfluous that people want. If they valued community and family time more than shiny new toys...

And I just realized I'm starting to talk like an old communist.

The traditional woman is shit because our society in the past has never loved it or given the equal respect like the traditional man received. Primitive societies or ones were the trad woman's impact and influence wasn't gutted or reduced are the best for the traditional woman idealised.

Cause what we have now works out so well...

They actively campaigned for it. Career women as a class were non existent and some butthurt dykes ruined it for e wry one.

For most families?

Some shiny new toys are actually essential items. You cannot live a modern lifestyle without a fridge, for example.

It's not possible to survive on one income when planned obsolescence as part of the economic system, when throughput is more important than wealth creation, when the finance industry has more influence than the people who use the market.

Yeah cause men of the past definitely wanted a sexually liberated woman who doesn't marry til 35 and wants to dump the kid in day care

Likewise, without access to the internet, it becomes increasingly harder to compete in the labor market.

>They actively campaigned for it. Career women as a class were non existent and some butthurt dykes ruined it for e wry one.

So...

They didn't force the government to increase taxes on working people, or businesses to cease increasing wages with productivity. These are the reasons two income households are the norm, not feminism. The action of feminism alone would just result in a small shuffling of which parent stays at home. It takes a government intent on preserving capitalism to make the economy require career women.

No car, no job.

No job, how do you afford a car?

No phone, no job.

No job, how do you afford a phone?

No address, no job.

No job, how do you afford an address?


MONEY HAS PHASE TRANSITIONS

>Cause what we have now works out so well...

It does. Woman have the choice of being financially independent without being shamed for it or having to basically be laughed at and be told to fuck off in an interview.

I wouldn't want to have to follow such strict guidelines for how to live my life. Would you?

That's why your husband takes care of you.

If the economy would allow it, I'm sure many of them would just be stay-at-home moms and actually raise future citizens.

I mean, I think women should be able to work and all that shit but how can you ay the woman on the left's happiness isn't 'real'?

>preferring the outfits on the left

Are you literally gay? The outfits on the left were indeed designed by men: GAY MEN!!!

and sensible Husbands don''t want women who have no education at all. If she did have education and only did it to make herself look marriage material and accrued loans you just married more debt.

I bet a ton of women would still work because the flexibility and ease of financial burden with a second salary is nice.

Because she doesn't know any better. It's like how people can be happy while poor until they have something to benchmark themselves by or compare to which really opens their eyes.

>That's why your husband takes care of you.

What if you didn't want the baggage that comes with that? Having zero leverage in financial decisions. Having to give birth and raise multiple kids. Being treated as a second class citizen by your family and neighbors. Some are perfectly happy with that of course but what if you aren't? People would tell you learn your damn place and your husband and parents would agree with them.

I'm sure they would. What i'm saying is i wouldn't want their options limited only due to their sex. Skills, ability, sure but not based on sex alone.

I'm not talking about the essential items, but about non essential ones. You don't need the newest smartphone or good looking shoes.

>a few dykes get their feelings hurt
>families and marriages are strong

>cater societal values to militant lesbians
>divorces skyrocket, abortion, two income households, etc

hmmm

>What i'm saying is i wouldn't want their options limited only due to their sex. Skills, ability, sure but not based on sex alone.
I agree. But for now, it is seen as degrading to hint that a woman would have a healthier life by staying at home and dedicating herself to her children. I don't see how we could backtrack a little and have the traditional female role seen as a viable option again. With how the economy is going, I doubt it will ever happen.

>It does.
Looking at the graphic in OP's picture it doesn't.

>Woman have the choice of being financially independent
Because money is everything in life.

this. There's a reason kids are drugged up due to 'depression' and go to therapists. The one person who was supposed to know them best and nurture them growing up is off in an office chasing dollars.

>having zero leverage
>implying

>literally complaining about giving birth
>implying people looked down on housewives

>Because she doesn't know any better. It's like how people can be happy while poor until they have something to benchmark themselves by or compare to which really opens their eyes.

In your opinion, happiness is based on money?

A depressed billionaire is actually happier than a happy Amish, but both don't know it?

Tell me more about your happiness theory.

>western society will die because women value that corporate office job more than children

Islam deserves to replace us tbf

And we need men like you to show us what happiness really is, and all the world has to offer?

Just oust Sociology and bring back Margaret Sanger and Woolstonecraft. It's not like there's a shortage of literature by the type of women you're talking about. That's pretty much what pre-Sociology feminism was.

>The traditional woman is shit because our society in the past has never loved it or given the equal respect like the traditional man received.

Traditional women are adored by their families and had a huge presence in their communities.

Perhaps every society reaching mass production drowns in capitalism and follows the same road.

Just look at what western culture did to Japan.

Not him (her), but it's not just about money, and your poor rhetoric won't snare anyone into thinking it is. Money was used as an example, not the be all, end all of the conversation.

We could make the same argument about anything: art, child raising, reading. If you've never done any of these things, your perspective on life will be much narrower than someone who has done them.

Maybe feminism increases as women's unhappiness increased.

You do need expensive shoes, actually. They are better value for money than cheap shoes.

And you need a phone that can access the internet. That's not just a luxury in 2016, if you want to live a normal life, you need a smartphone.

I'm sure that's because of feminism. Employers had no choice but to stagnate wages; the government had no choice but to raise taxes on working people! The feminists forced them to!

I don't have a smartphone, and I live a normal life, with a job and all.

[spoiler]No gf though..[/spoiler]

>How dare people with extensive experiences remove me from my ignorance?!

It's not just men doing that, though that's a nice red herring you tried to fish up. Many women (indeed, Sanger and Wollstonecraft) already advocated for other women to take charge of experiencing their own lives.

>>Woman have the choice of being financially independent

This is a nice idea, too bad that the reality is that both parents have to work in order for a family to get by now and the children in said families have less attention and care paid to them then previous generations of children had.

No internet access of any kind either, I assume?

It would hold for anything else, really.

That person is basing happiness where it isn't. Happiness is not based on having experienced more pleasure, comfort, having more money, etc.

Wouldn't that mean that women being able to go to the workplace is a good thing then since at the very least it has kept people from starving?

>>I'm sure that's because of what feminism enabled. Employers had no choice but to stagnate wages; the government had no choice but to raise taxes on working people! The feminists enabled them to do so!

It's not directly their fault, but the two parent family is what allowed for the shrinking of wages and the increase of taxes.

Not really, because people wouldn't start starving if we went back to one income households again.

You got a source for that?

>You do need expensive shoes, actually. They are better value for money than cheap shoes.

I would be happy to inform you that I don't have any expensive shoes and that I'm alive. I would also like to inform you that my 2 pairs of shoes have lasted over 5 years so far and one of them can last longer.

>And you need a phone that can access the internet. That's not just a luxury in 2016, if you want to live a normal life, you need a smartphone.

You don't need one to have a good life. I actually know many people that don't. And even if you do buy one, you don't need the newest Iphone.

>a few dykes get their feelings hurt
>families and marriages are strong

You mean the possibility to be autonomous for more than half of the population isn't worth shit? That's wrong senpai. I would wager theres more to this than just woman though. People are less religious than before so the sacredness of marriage likely not longer plays as strong a part in keeping families together.

>divorces skyrocket
I don't like it but i'd rather they get divorced than live an unhappy marriage for the rest of their lives. I do agree this has a bad effect on children though

>abortion
Keeps crime rates down. Helps alleviate cyclical poverty. Children are had by people ready and able to give them proper care.

>two income households
Not a bad thing. No longer a choice but a must for a lot couples as another user pointed out.

>happiness can be judged consistently and without ambiguity through the decades
>the only thing to have changed in 40 years is muh feminism

You may be right though. I really don't know.

>Because money is everything in life.

It's about a lot more than that. You know that Don't be dishonest.

>having zero leverage

Do you think the wives got to decide where they lived? What the money was spent on? Whether they got a beating or not? There was little room to get uppity senpai. That's part of the deal. The man is in control and you serve him and your children. That's your place and when you're not bringing in money you can do little to prove otherwise.

>literally complaining about giving birth
Maybe you like that sort of thing. Would you enjoy 2 years of being pregnant, 3 births, and three 18 year commitments? Remember this would be expected of you. You may in fact want that but that's not my point. My point is that you should be able to choose something else without everyone telling you to get back to your place at every turn.

>housewives
They were subservient second class citizens + No choice.

How exactly? People today are doing the two income thing because jobs don't pay enough anymore, how is telling them that 50% of the potential workforce in the home has to stay at home going make things any better?

>literally Mad Men is real life: the post

I wasn't a alive then. Tell me what's i'm assuming wrong.

>Keeps crime rates down
It doesn't. Levitt was wrong.

>happiness can be judged consistently and without ambiguity through the decades
>You may be right though. I really don't know.
Happiness research has its problems, but... either you are happy or you aren't.

>It's about a lot more than that. You know that Don't be dishonest.
About what?

>>How?
Simple, government intervention into the economy on behalf of the poor. You know, what we used to have before the rise of Reganomics.

Things like non-gutted welfare programs funded by progressive taxation policies, actual manufacturing jobs protected by labor unions and tariffs.

Stuff like that.

Not even that guy but feminism is objectively shit for societies, declining birth rate and tre destruction of morality/ the family. Like that one guy said women wanted a BMW more than a family so now we have Syrian refugees and sexbots

>muh bennies

Do you really think they were literal slaves to their husbands? you literally just cherry pick he worst examples from everything. Sounds like you read a bunch of tumblr fan fiction. Plenty of people, including not my grandparents had great marriages. My grandpa had a EE PhD. My grandma was a HS graduate. Don't even know what to say about the birth thing, id say 99% of ppl back then wanted kids and dint see it as a burden. Women were looked up to as mothers and homemakers- "the hand that rocks the cradle rocks the world"

I think you are looking at that world through tinted lenses as well user, lenses that you never even wore and are just described to you by one person.

Those "bennies" were what kept the middle class and working classes from a long slide into decay and irrelevance.

But feminism continued to increased between 1995 and 2000 and women got happier

Plus, if feminism made women less happy then they should have been much unhappier than men, while the graph shows that men and women declined in happiness in roughly equal proportions.

This suggests that a different factor caused happiness to drop in all people regardless of gender from 1970 to 19995

Looking at this thread, I realize something that I always suspected.

Feminists are completely ignorant of philosophy. Their belief is some kind of crude utilitarianism.

You tried to make the 50s sound like they were hell on earth. I just think they were breddy gud. Not just one person btw

Could it be that we've been sold out by neoliberalism?

...nah

>But feminism continued to increased between 1995 and 2000 and women got happier
1995 was an outlier.
2000 was actually where the line would go, if you ignored 1995.


>Plus, if feminism made women less happy then they should have been much unhappier than men, while the graph shows that men and women declined in happiness in roughly equal proportions.
Look at the green bar.

Feminism is objectively good for societies, preventing overpopulation and promoting liberty.

Wow, I didn't know it was this easy to pull objective facts out from my ass

I realized something too. Stereotypes and confirmation bias have overcome your ability to think critically.

>My graph supports my point if you ignore the data
Whatever you say user

>Look at the green bar.
Yeah, the green bar supports the notion that women have been happier than men except during the "outlier" years of 1995 and 2000.
Wait a second, you don't believe that feminism started in 1995, do you?

>believing the overpopulation meme

Liberty to be a slut and murder your child maybe?

Was there a huge anti-neoliberal backlash in 1995?

You are right that We can't go back to one Income families with the Conditions of today

Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution has already destroyed the extended family and is now Destroying the Nuclear Family.

Next it will destroy the concept of a Family because it gets in the way of muh Economy and give the state our Children

>prevent overpopulation
Except it's now depopulating, white people are far from that 2.1 child per household just to maintain our numbers.

>It doesn't. Levitt was wrong.
I haven't read or kept up with the argument but it seemed intuitive to me. Do you know why it's wrong?

>Happiness research has its problems, but... either you are happy or you aren't.
Yes but pinning it to one issue alone is a stretch especially in the context that half out population should be denied a great portion of opportunities available to everyone else.

>About what?
Everything. It's about every career previously denied to you being open if you have the skill and aptitude. Your future, occupation, family life, where you live, how "your" money is spent, how you spend your free time, is no longer determined by a script or if your husband approves. You can have an understanding husband sure but money is pretty important and he has the final decision in that regard if you don't make any.

>Not even that guy but feminism is objectively shit for societies

It's about more than BMWs senpai and the destruction of society is about more than gender roles.

You may be right though. A lot of the things and liberties we enjoy are likely breaking down what kept us going. I wouldn't go as far to say as that makes them fundamentally bad though.

>Except it's now depopulating, white people are far from that 2.1 child per household just to maintain our numbers.
This is why nonwhites need feminism

>Whatever you say user
Take a derivative from the lines from 1970 to 1990. Now, use that derivative to construct a line to predict happiness levels in 2000, parting from 1990.

>Yeah, the green bar supports the notion that women have been happier than men except during the "outlier" years of 1995 and 2000.

The green bar is getting smaller and smaller until it went negative.

Pretty bad for most things of the world except a few parts of America and certain demographics.

1950 nostalgia is an American thing.

I never said any of those things, I was just tossing my 2 cents in on the conversation, fag. I just personally don't buy into that 'good old days' shit since I guarantee you that there were lots of old people in the 50s who were going on about how the 50s sucked compared to their generation.

>I haven't read or kept up with the argument but it seemed intuitive to me. Do you know why it's wrong?

Programming error

wsj.com/articles/SB113314261192407815

>Yes but pinning it to one issue alone is a stretch especially in the context that half out population should be denied a great portion of opportunities available to everyone else.

Happiness is more important than anything, I would say.

>Everything. It's about every career previously denied to you being open if you have the skill and aptitude. Your future, occupation, family life, where you live, how "your" money is spent, how you spend your free time, is no longer determined by a script or if your husband approves. You can have an understanding husband sure but money is pretty important and he has the final decision in that regard if you don't make any.

Housewives usually managed the household money. And in marriage, the accounts became joint accounts (at least in my country). And in the end, you are looking too much about money.

>Happiness is more important than anything, I would say.
Taking us out of the current conversation for a moment, am I correct to assume that you would choose to plug in to an "experience machine"?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

I think the best thing is not only happiness, but a rational and lucid understand of your own happiness.

I'm not a hedonist in this sense of the world.

In the countries that have them in Asia, Africa and Sa they aren't.