Split Thread Are post-feminism women happier?

[shuttlt]

It's a very strange theory in this thread, that because females aren't ecstatic today, they would be happier if they were prohibited from having bank accounts or owning property or having jobs or going to school... and really, they'd be "happier" if they just stayed in the kitchen and made babies.

But weren't you saying they were happier when that was the case? I mean, I understand that in theory they shouldn't be happy living like that, but then again, in theory should 50 Shades of Grey have been so wildly popular with women? The question isn't what society do we think should make women happy but what society does in fact make women happy. At the moment, we have 1972 having been much better for women than today.

I think it would be highly entertaining to see someone arguing the same view with respect to race, that black people would be "happier" if they were still slaves.

Some ex-slaves did kind of say that... .but I doubt there is any data going back that far of the sort we are discussing in this thread. With all these questions you have to ask "compared to what"? In the case of slavery the "compared to what" is being a slave in a functioning economy, or being a penniless, skilless outcast in a ruined economy. Some came out of that OK, and some didn't.

 

[shuttlt]

I think you're in "reflexive disagreement" mode instead of actually trying to understand mode.


You noted declining happiness and asked, "Is that what we were sold." I noted that I didn't think it was, in fact, "what we were sold". After some back and forth, I said that the women's rights movement didn't seek happiness, but sought the right to pursue happiness.

You don't like that? Take it up with Jefferson.

I'm not disagreeing you for the sake of it. I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree.

By all means, if you want to claim that feminists wanted to have the right to pursue happiness, but were entirely ambivalent about whether or not it made them happier.... OK, I'll take your word for it. All such movements are led by small groups of driven ideologues, so it's possible. If feminists really had no interest in whether what they were doing would make women happier, then I think it is deeply unfortunate for women that a group who was not motivated by their happiness came to represent them and exercise such power over them.

 

[xjx388]

This is like the trans thread and people claiming that they really don't know what a woman is. Are you happy? Do you feel more satisfied with you life than not? Are those not meaningful questions?


Only if you view the world in a mercantile way where you count CEOs or something as the measure of how well off each sex is. Emily's Cat was just saying that women are now worse off.


I agree it has changed the world so that women are discouraged from spending time with their children and are less likely to hear their babies first words, while being encouraged to try to become CEOs. If that is being better off, then it's definitely a win for feminism.


I don't. I don't see the world in the mercantile, materialist way that liberalism does.

Is more freedom and opportunity a good thing or not?

Why isn’t it bad if men don’t spend time with their babies or aren’t there to hear their kid’s first words? Are you saying that a woman’s place is in the home, having and taking care of the kids, cooking/cleaning and waiting for her breadwinning man to get home to give him his pipe and slippers? Because if you are, I think women these days would disagree with you. The fact that we’ve moved on from that antiquated world is indeed a win not just for feminism but for human rights and equality for all.

As for me, I am indeed happy that I live in a society where my wife could go to school and become a doctor and I had a big hand in raising my kids. Women AND men have more choices, freedom and opportunity than ever before and it’s mostly because we stopped insisting women had to serve men. The only reason someone wouldn’t be happy about that is if they have regressive views about a woman’s rightful place.

 

[shuttlt]

1. I'm not convinced the data shows a decline in happiness.

Could you explain why. There appear to be a lot of other studies making similar claims, perhaps we can find one that answers your criticism?

2. I'm not convinced any change in happiness, positive or negative, is a consequence of feminism, given all the other changes of the last fifty years. There's a real danger of a "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" fallacy here.

I haven't intended to claim that the graphs proves this. People keep arguing as if I did. What I have been saying is that it seems to me to at least call into question whether feminism has really been a positive force for women if after 50 years they are less happy.

3. I don't think the goal of the women's rights movement was "happiness", but rather freedom of action, which I referred to earlier as "the pursuit of happiness."

This seems like a very strange distinction. Maybe some people would think a right to pursue happiness that led to more people being unhappy was a good thing, but would most people be thankful for this? It seems like a very random and abstract sort of a right if you aren't actually interested in whether it leads to an increase in happiness.

4. Even if it didn't result in happiness, I'm not convinced that means it was bad. If you could actually show data that feminism, or some social change brought about by feminism, actually was responsible for a decrease in happiness, that would be a reason to at least examine feminism and question whether the goals of feminism were a good idea, but I don't think you've met that burden yet.

Well, that's impossible because these changes are never implemented in a way where such a determination can be made. In that sense any claim of feminism to having made women's lives better is entirely unfalsifiable. That being the case, is there anything that would cause us to question feminist assumptions.... or are the assumptions just axiomatically good and true?

5. And, finally, even if you could show that changes in civil rights law and other victories of the women's rights movement resulted in a net change in happiness for the average woman or the average man, I would be reluctant to say that we ought to repeal those legal changes and return to pre-feminist society. Those changes would have to be pretty dramatic before I would tell people that they couldn't pursue their own dreams because it made the average woman unhappy.

Well, you can't really go back. These changes are permanent... it's like arguing about whether it was a good idea to squeeze all the toothpaste out of the tube and maybe we should put it back. Good luck with that. What I'm arguing is that maybe, someday it might be worth questioning some of these assumptions...? As I've said before to Emily's Cat, to my mind trans-woman stuff is deeply connected to exactly the same liberal desire to allow people to pursue happiness that you value. In fact lots of her list are things that fall out of this. Do we just keep going on not liking the results but dogmatically sticking to the process that keeps delivering them?

 

[Paul2]

nvm

 

[Paul2]

I agree. I am not claiming that the data shows that. If I have appeared to do so at all, it is me failing to be precise enough in my language. What I am claiming is that, as the paper I posted earlier makes clear in its title, declining female happiness is a bit of a paradox given the feminist narrative.

Personally, I suspect feminism has been a net negative for happiness, but I don't mean to imply there is data to prove it.

The next step, I suppose, is to get some actual data that does say, firmly, whether feminism has made women more happy. I'll nose around a little on that, perhaps.

 

[Paul2]

OK. If feminism isn't supposed to make women happy, I have no idea why we should care about it or want to implement it.

Your approach conflates two different things: if I value fairness, then I might need to sacrifice my happiness so that someone else is made happy at my expense through a fair process, with the realization that a fair society will, at some point, make me happy by being fair to me at another's expense. You can say that living in such a society makes me happy, but there are two different kinds of happiness there: the direct one, and the meta-one.

We need to stop talking about happiness in general - which I doubt is even a thing - and talk about happiness with specifics, or even better, preferences between choices ("Would you rather receive equal pay for equal worth work, or less pay for equal worth work?").

 

[shuttlt]

Is more freedom and opportunity a good thing or not?

Sometimes.

Why isn’t it bad if men don’t spend time with their babies or aren’t there to hear their kid’s first words?

Somebody can't, and women seem to be more naturally drawn to this and made more happy by it than men. Plus, obviously there are logistical advantages that women have in that department that I think do the baby more good than a man could provide. You are going from universal liberal truths rather than how the world actually works. The quest for equality involves a denial of nature.

Are you saying that a woman’s place is in the home, having and taking care of the kids, cooking/cleaning and waiting for her breadwinning man to get home to give him his pipe and slippers?

I'm not sure I would put it like that.There was a time of course between the fall of Rome and the birth of the modern world where everybody had their place in the great chain of being. Like I think I've said... I think that the quest for equality an the push for equality is an ideologically driven denial of nature and reality. I think that in a more conservative society, many of the things Emily's Cat objects to in the modern world would go away. I think absent this ideological push to encourage women to have a career and delay having children far fewer of them would do this and they would be happier. "Their place" smells to me as if there is maybe some hierarchy of places, or that there should be some kind of compulsion, which I don't think I want to concede.

Because if you are, I think women these days would disagree with you.

I know. They have been propagandised for 50 years that leaving their children to become wage slaves is the road to happiness. As I've said though, they were happier at the start of that journey than at the end. You can't grow up having your head filled with positive messaging about how girls can be more than "just a mom", and be the person you would have been, and enjoy the life you would have enjoyed without that messaging.

The fact that we’ve moved on from that antiquated world is indeed a win not just for feminism but for human rights and equality for all.

That just amounts to liberalism has made things more liberal which is good because it accords with liberalism. Rights that don't result in people being happier in the long run don't interest me.

As for me, I am indeed happy that I live in a society where my wife could go to school and become a doctor and I had a big hand in raising my kids. Women AND men have more choices, freedom and opportunity than ever before and it’s mostly because we stopped insisting women had to serve men. The only reason someone wouldn’t be happy about that is if they have regressive views about a woman’s rightful place.

No. My reasoning is based on empiricism and a desire for people to be happy. Your reasoning is based on taking liberal axioms as divine truths.

 

[Paul2]

In, say, 1200 your average peasant worked far fewer hours a day/days per year, had enough to eat, had a functioning community around him and could feel confident that there would be a secure place in the world for his kids. Today, how many people are on anti-depressants?

Before we make a judgment about how things were in 1200 versus today, we really need to make a more comprehensive list of the differences and similarities. For instance, were there any downsides to living in 1200 compared to today?

 

[shuttlt]

The next step, I suppose, is to get some actual data that does say, firmly, whether feminism has made women more happy. I'll nose around a little on that, perhaps.

Much appreciated.

 

[shuttlt]

Your approach conflates two different things: if I value fairness, then I might need to sacrifice my happiness so that someone else is made happy at my expense through a fair process, with the realization that a fair society will, at some point, make me happy by being fair to me at another's expense. You can say that living in such a society makes me happy, but there are two different kinds of happiness there: the direct one, and the meta-one.

Sure. I am talking about maximizing people feeling satisfied with their lives as a long term sustainable trend. Whether that is because of some meta-level happiness, or more direct, I'm not sure I really mind.

We need to stop talking about happiness in general - which I doubt is even a thing - and talk about happiness with specifics, or even better, preferences between choices ("Would you rather receive equal pay for equal worth, or less pay for equal worth?").

No, I don't think that is a good question. It gets into issues of stated preferences vs revealed preferences. I am very confident that if you went around asking people they would say they wanted all sorts of contradictory things that would in fact not make them happy. This is the way you find that people want low taxes and high public spending. The question I am interested in is what actually makes people happy.

 

[Paul2]

This is like the trans thread and people claiming that they really don't know what a woman is. Are you happy? Do you feel more satisfied with you life than not? Are those not meaningful questions?

How does one even attempt to answer those questions with any hope of accuracy? I can say I'm happy in this circumstance, and unhappy in that one, but how do I add that up? Counting the number of circumstances in each? Multiplying by some intensity factor? What if one person defines circumstances more broadly or narrowly than other? It feels to me like it's more just grabbing an estimate out of your butt.

Again, if you phrase questions in terms of preferences between options ("Would you rather have job X than the one you have?"), that measures something discrete. Asking if one is happy in general is impossibly vague, even though it sounds reasonable.

 

[shuttlt]

Before we make a judgment about how things were in 1200 versus today, we really need to make a more comprehensive list of the differences and similarities. For instance, were there any downsides to living in 1200 compared to today?

Loads.

 

[Paul2]

Sure. I am talking about maximizing people feeling satisfied with their lives as a long term sustainable trend. Whether that is because of some meta-level happiness, or more direct, I'm not sure I really mind.


No, I don't think that is a good question. It gets into issues of stated preferences vs revealed preferences. I am very confident that if you went around asking people they would say they wanted all sorts of contradictory things that would in fact not make them happy. This is the way you find that people want low taxes and high public spending. The question I am interested in is what actually makes people happy.

OK, I take your point about the problem with preferences, but that's a separate issue from the vagueness about happiness in general. You might reply to another post of mine that covers the same ground. Either way is good.

 

[shuttlt]

How does one even attempt to answer those questions with any hope of accuracy? I can say I'm happy in this circumstance, and unhappy in that one, but how do I add that up? Counting the number of circumstances in each? Multiplying by some intensity factor? What if one person defines circumstances more broadly or narrowly than other? It feels to me like it's more just grabbing an estimate out of your butt.

This is just like the trans thread. Yes, I could overcomplicate and overthink the question. Equally I could roughly tell you whether I feel pleased or not with my life. If say you have Fantine having her teeth pulled out at the lower end of that scale, and Mrs Bennet seeing one of her daughters marrying someone with £10,000 at the top end, I think I could place myself on that scale at least approximately.

I would say that one sign that this is a real measure would be if multiple studies showed similar effects. That does seem to be being claimed in this case.

Again, if you phrase questions in terms of preferences between options ("Would you rather have job X than the one you have?"), that measures something discrete.

No, that would be measuring stated preference vs revealed preference. I am not interested in stated preference.

Asking if one is happy in general is impossibly vague, even though it sounds reasonable.

Is it? If it was, would we expect happiness graphs to show no pattern? Some would go up, some would go straight down, some would go up and down? This sounds like something we could check.

 

[bruto]

I agree. I am not claiming that the data shows that. If I have appeared to do so at all, it is me failing to be precise enough in my language. What I am claiming is that, as the paper I posted earlier makes clear in its title, declining female happiness is a bit of a paradox given the feminist narrative.

Personally, I suspect feminism has been a net negative for happiness, but I don't mean to imply there is data to prove it.

A person who is ignorant of possibilities may be happier than one who sees opportunity, and it may be that a person ignorant of possibilities is happier than someone who sees opportunity but cannot yet fulfill it, too.

I think a lot depends on who you ask, who is defining happiness, when the statement is made, and it also depends on whether you think we are actually at the stage that can be called "post feminism."

I think happiness, to be meaningful, can be pretty complex. Bliss and comfort are only part of it. What answers you get when you ask may depend on what you're asking.

Of course my experience is anecdotal and limited, but I can't think of many, if any, women who regret the still incomplete journey toward greater equality.

And as the old saying goes, "The furrier skins more foxes than asses."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. This is where liberation leads.

I'm really going to need more than your bare assertion on this. You've essentially taken the position that liberalism inevitably leads to regressive dehumanization and the removal of rights... which I'm not seeing.

The things I take issue with are the things that are extraordinarily *illiberal* in nature, relying on authoritarian decree, censorship, and threat.

Does it not make you question it all a bit that all the hope embodied in your description of the world up until the 90s has come to this? Back in the 20s marxists started questioning marxism because things weren't panning out as promised. Does there not come a time when it's time to question basic assumptions?

Sure, but I don't think you're looking in the right place. For starters, I'm not convinced you even have the basic assumptions of feminism correct. And for these purposes, let's say 2nd wave feminism. Secondly, I am not particularly convinced that that the lack of desired outcomes is a failure of feminism.

Would you take the position that the lack of desired outcome in terms of equality under the law and in society of black people is a failure of the entire concept of civil rights? That would be a fairly shallow reading of the intention of civil rights and the complexity of society. I think you're doing the same thing here.

We are seeing the progress of females being stripped away, largely by males. Somehow, it seems as though you're blaming the actions of males on the desires of females. I don't see how you can reconcile that.

I mentioned porn above. Women have the liberty to appear in porn, and men have the liberty to watch it. I don't think on average either has their lives improved by that. You don't seem to like this expression of liberty either.

I'm not entirely anti-porn. I am, however, very much opposed to amateur porn uploaded and published by anonymous users. That has no safeguards, no guarantee of consent, and indeed a large portion of it lacks consent. Even if it's not really my thing, I don't have any particular objection to professionally produced porn involving consenting adults, with appropriate oversight and safety precautions in place.

As an analogy to my view on it, I don't have any problem with people working as domestic servants; I have a problem with people being slaves.

Men and women can never be equal because they are different and have different desires and needs. My view is that the best we can do is to be sympathetic to each others different problems and be guided by what actually makes people happy rather than ideology.

Let's unpack this.

In what ways exactly can males and females never be equal? I'd like to hear your views on this, and what that entails prior to offering my own views.

 

[shuttlt]

For what little it's worth, I do have a theory I haven't seen anywhere else about that happiness graph.... There is other data that shows women get less happy as they age, while men become more happy. I haven't looked into it too hard, so I don't make any strong claims. The mean age of the population has been increasing though, I think.....

 

[shuttlt]

A person who is ignorant of possibilities may be happier than one who sees opportunity, and it may be that a person ignorant of possibilities is happier than someone who sees opportunity but cannot yet fulfill it, too.

Certainly. I don't think women were ignorant that the world or work existed though in the way that people in 1970 were ignorant of iPhones.

I think a lot depends on who you ask, who is defining happiness, when the statement is made, and it also depends on whether you think we are actually at the stage that can be called "post feminism."

We are post all the changes feminism has brought up until now. Whether there is more to come, I leave to the ladies.

I think happiness, to be meaningful, can be pretty complex. Bliss and comfort are only part of it. What answers you get when you ask may depend on what you're asking.

Sure, but the claims in what I've read so far is that there are lots of surveys over many decades and countries that all show the same thing. If it's hopelessly vague and depends how you ask the question, that doesn't feel like it should be the case.

Of course my experience is anecdotal and limited, but I can't think of many, if any, women who regret the still incomplete journey toward greater equality.

No, but as I've said repeatedly in this thread, that is a very different question.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Apologies. I thought I was summarizing a position you had articulated. When previously I had said that I was not convinced that women today were happier with women in the past, you disagreed with me and used yourself as an example. I think I said at the time that that didn't really refute my claim, but I didn't realise you didn't disagree. I don't understand that exchange now, but maybe it doesn't matter since you have certainly clarified your position since.

Your current position is that women were indeed happier in the 70s/80s than today. Yes?

The time frame is an important aspect of that measure, one that was absent from your initial post. It's also important to establish what that happiness is based on, and to what it is being compared.

I am happier than I believe I would have been had I been born 100 years ago. I think nearly all females in the developed world would share that sentiment.

I am NOT happier now than I was in the 80s and 90s. But that is not a failure of feminism, as far as I can tell. It's the direct result of male-centered activities and actions that have caused my loss of happiness with respect to the state of being a female in society. That said, I personally am happier and more content with life in general than I was in the 80s and 90s, because I am a successful professional with a satisfying career, a wonderful spouse, close family and friends, economic stability, and satisfying intellectual stimulation on the internet.

Everything in my life that is unrelated to the experience of females in my society has improved; that experience has degenerated.