Are women becoming unhappier?

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Interesting. I live in my house all by myself and I don't think I have to "bust my ass" to get things done. Yeah, I don't watch a lot of TV or veg out a whole lot, but once you learn to enjoy the chores a bit, it's not too bad.

I wonder if the reason that women are less happy is because their men are not as good at pleasing them anymore...

If any women out there think that might be the case, please feel free to send me a PM and set up some "therapy" sessions

LOL. Get married and have kids. Report back on how many chores you have to do and how much free time you have to do them in.

If it's that hard and you hate it so much you probably shouldn't have kids. I don't understand people that bitch about this. I play on 4 sports teams right now so I spend huge amounts of money on league fees, equipment, clothing, and huge amounts of time keeping everything organized, getting to practices communicating with the managers when I have conflicts etc. etc. etc. But I don't hate doing these things, if I did I wouldn't play all these sports.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
+1
when I was single I use to go home to relax and chill. now that I have a newborn I go to work to relax and chill.

I've never understood this. Work sucks for nearly everyone. How shitty must your life be if you WANT to go to work?

ever raised a newborn with colic? it's a lot of work and I actually like my job. thank you.

I guarantee he hasn't which is why he can't relate. I have though and I know just what you mean. Sometimes you just need a break and work can be a break. :thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

Around the same time they had to get off their ass and get a job. Surprise, surprise.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Crono
I don't think Rivan's statement was discriminatory, or if it was, it wasn't negative.

It makes sense for one person to take a more active role in care of the kids and the household (not just cleaning, but finance and upkeep of the home), because those are things that are just as important as earning money to provide for that family.

People think that gender roles are bad, but I don't think that's true. It's wrong when there is some kind of abuse of power or unequal distribution of responsibilities. It's not wrong for women to work outside of the home, but if that's the case, the husband should (presumably he's willing) take the role of maintaining the household and raising the kids.

It's possible for both husband and wife to work in a family with kids, however if they are working full time with inflexible schedules, it becomes nearly impossible to find time to adequately spend time with their kids and take care of the household. Sure, if they are making enough money they can hire people to do those things, but it's not quite the same, especially with their children.

I am speaking generally, there are always exceptions.

After Rivan claimed that women are suited to housework, and men to working-outside-the-house, it was easy to extrapolate his preference; were he in a position of power, able to choose between two similarly qualified people of different genders for promotion, whom do you think he would pick?

This is what he said:

Originally posted by: Rivan
I'd even go so far as to say that women would be better in the home specifically on the issue of raising children, as most women I've known have been better nurturers than most men.

I don't think anyone could question the fact that women, at least by nature, are better suited for nurturing children, particularly when they are very young (newborn to toddlers).
Granted, that doesn't mean all mothers are good mothers, but there is no doubt that mothers are better suited as caregivers of their own children during the early stages of their lives.

I'm not saying men shouldn't and can't care for their kids, but the child-mother bond is particular strong at that early age.

 

[miketheidiot]

well this thread went about as expected

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Crono
I don't think Rivan's statement was discriminatory, or if it was, it wasn't negative.

It makes sense for one person to take a more active role in care of the kids and the household (not just cleaning, but finance and upkeep of the home), because those are things that are just as important as earning money to provide for that family.

People think that gender roles are bad, but I don't think that's true. It's wrong when there is some kind of abuse of power or unequal distribution of responsibilities. It's not wrong for women to work outside of the home, but if that's the case, the husband should (presumably he's willing) take the role of maintaining the household and raising the kids.

It's possible for both husband and wife to work in a family with kids, however if they are working full time with inflexible schedules, it becomes nearly impossible to find time to adequately spend time with their kids and take care of the household. Sure, if they are making enough money they can hire people to do those things, but it's not quite the same, especially with their children.

I am speaking generally, there are always exceptions.

After Rivan claimed that women are suited to housework, and men to working-outside-the-house, it was easy to extrapolate his preference; were he in a position of power, able to choose between two similarly qualified people of different genders for promotion, whom do you think he would pick?

Wow. Can you read? Rivan never said that women specifically need to stay home, only that he thinks women make better nurturers than men. All he was saying is that one spouse should stay home and the other should work, and that creates a much better home environment than when both parents work.

Originally posted by: Rivan
I'm no cheauvanist, but I think we'd have been better off sticking with a single breadwinner per household. Keeping it a single sex would make for a simpler societal arrangement but isn't necessary.

...

All together, I think the spouse in the home - male or female - has an easier life than the breadwinner.

404 Chauvinism not found.

 

[venkman]

Isn't everyone supposed to unhappier then they were 35 years ago?

 

[Yreka]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Interesting. I live in my house all by myself and I don't think I have to "bust my ass" to get things done. Yeah, I don't watch a lot of TV or veg out a whole lot, but once you learn to enjoy the chores a bit, it's not too bad.

I wonder if the reason that women are less happy is because their men are not as good at pleasing them anymore...

If any women out there think that might be the case, please feel free to send me a PM and set up some "therapy" sessions

LOL. Get married and have kids. Report back on how many chores you have to do and how much free time you have to do them in.

If it's that hard and you hate it so much you probably shouldn't have kids. I don't understand people that bitch about this. I play on 4 sports teams right now so I spend huge amounts of money on league fees, equipment, clothing, and huge amounts of time keeping everything organized, getting to practices communicating with the managers when I have conflicts etc. etc. etc. But I don't hate doing these things, if I did I wouldn't play all these sports.

He said it was hard, he didn't say he hated it..

The example you gave, "bitching" about sports, but ultimately admitting you enjoy them should help you understand the situation

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: venkman
Isn't everyone supposed to unhappier then they were 35 years ago?

Nah, 35 years ago I was swimming around in my dad's scrotum. This is so much better.

 

[PingSpike]

Oh course, they're not as happy. They have to work now. Working always sucked ass, I'm not sure why they thought it didn't! So much horseshit with work. Man, if it was an option I'd stay home all day and bake and cook and raise kids. And I don't even like cooking, baking nor am I that great with kids. I don't have to fill out forms every time I need to wipe a kids ass, or worry about being promoted to head baker. I don't have to go to a meeting decide how to fold laundry or sit in traffic. No office politics, hell, only ONE other person to answer too! And if I want to get drunk at 2pm I'm going to do it.

About the only thing that really blows ass for the old arrangement is you don't really have any money/power. But you know what they say about power? "With great power comes a great drinking problem." Thats right. And today's divorce courts who really has the power?

I think the whole idea of the movement was they lacked choices, which they did. Of course, they still do. Now that most women can work they have too. I'm not sure who would have signed up if you said that was the end result though. But cheer up! At least you can afford a cool car with the second salary. You'll need it, that traffic is a bastard and I need you to pick the kids up from daycare on the way home.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Oh course, they're not as happy. They have to work now. Working always sucked ass, I'm not sure why they thought it didn't! So much horseshit with work. Man, if it was an option I'd stay home all day and bake and cook and raise kids. And I don't even like cooking, baking nor am I that great with kids. I don't have to fill out forms every time I need to wipe a kids ass, or worry about being promoted to head baker. I don't have to go to a meeting decide how to fold laundry or sit in traffic. No office politics, hell, only ONE other person to answer too! And if I want to get drunk at 2pm I'm going to do it.

About the only thing that really blows ass for the old arrangement is you don't really have any money/power. But you know what they say about power? "With great power comes a great drinking problem." Thats right. And today's divorce courts who really has the power?

I think the whole idea of the movement was they lacked choices, which they did. Of course, they still do. Now that most women can work they have too. I'm not sure who would have signed up if you said that was the end result though. But cheer up! At least you can afford a cool car with the second salary. You'll need it, that traffic is a bastard and I need you to pick the kids up from daycare on the way home.

Lol, this post is win for so many reasons.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Oh course, they're not as happy. They have to work now. Working always sucked ass, I'm not sure why they thought it didn't! So much horseshit with work. Man, if it was an option I'd stay home all day and bake and cook and raise kids. And I don't even like cooking, baking nor am I that great with kids. I don't have to fill out forms every time I need to wipe a kids ass, or worry about being promoted to head baker. I don't have to go to a meeting decide how to fold laundry or sit in traffic. No office politics, hell, only ONE other person to answer too! And if I want to get drunk at 2pm I'm going to do it.

About the only thing that really blows ass for the old arrangement is you don't really have any money/power. But you know what they say about power? "With great power comes a great drinking problem." Thats right. And today's divorce courts who really has the power?

I think the whole idea of the movement was they lacked choices, which they did. Of course, they still do. Now that most women can work they have too. I'm not sure who would have signed up if you said that was the end result though. But cheer up! At least you can afford a cool car with the second salary. You'll need it, that traffic is a bastard and I need you to pick the kids up from daycare on the way home.

Lol, this post is win for so many reasons.

Mainly because it's true.

 

[spaceman]

the told 2x riddle hasben solved

the answer is : stay home

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: venkman
Isn't everyone supposed to unhappier then they were 35 years ago?

Nah, 35 years ago I was swimming around in my dad's scrotum. This is so much better.

I dunno... your dad's scrotum is the place to be.

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: n yusef
This data can be explained in two ways. First, women's expectations have risen more than reality has improved. That is, they expect to be treated fairly, but there are still people like Rivan who discriminate against them. Second, as gender norms have relaxed, women are more likely to express their unhappiness than before. 35 years ago, it would have been unladylike to say that one was unhappy, but now it's more acceptable.

(Laugh) Did you even think before typing that?

 

[Kadarin]

Back in 1970 we didn't have a $100/month cable bill, cellphone bill, internet bill, and daycare bill. We also have lot more toys these days (cars with GPS, iPhones, Kindles, PCs, flatscreen TVs, etc) so we're much more likely to have a fairly high credit card bill too. So it takes 2 incomes to pay for it all...

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: yllus

I'm not sure I agree with that first conclusion - perhaps it has more to do with women, like men, being generally risk-averse, and the new availability of choice adding stress to their lives? Interesting nonetheless.

Didn't read the whole article but could there be gender bias in the reporting? Men feeling more pressure to look like they're happy, women feeling more comfortable talking about their unhappiness?

Though those results don't surprise me and I would anecdotally find them true.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Sounds like a load of bullshit if you ask me.

Oh? Why?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. With women 'in the home' we had a similar economic standard of living, but didn't have to bust ass every weekend to knock out all the chores that pile up during the week because both parents are working. We had a better sense of community and I believe a better system of raising our children.

I'm no cheauvanist, but I think we'd have been better off sticking with a single breadwinner per household. Keeping it a single sex would make for a simpler societal arrangement but isn't necessary. I'd even go so far as to say that women would be better in the home specifically on the issue of raising children, as most women I've known have been better nurturers than most men.

All together, I think the spouse in the home - male or female - has an easier life than the breadwinner. There's no boss, there's no office politics, there's no competition for jobs, etc. It's not all poolside daiquiris and naps, but it's certainly lower stress than "working for a living".

Female here, and I agree with you. In my case my husband would be a better stay-at-home than I would but I still would prefer to stay-at-home than be working like I am (we have no kids so neither of us actually stays at home.) And no disrespect to stay-at-homes; my mom was a full time mom and teacher for me and my siblings and it wasn't easy work in the least.

 

[SirChadwick]

More women smoked pot in the 70s than men... I guess.

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Sounds like a load of bullshit if you ask me.

Oh? Why?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. With women 'in the home' we had a similar economic standard of living, but didn't have to bust ass every weekend to knock out all the chores that pile up during the week because both parents are working. We had a better sense of community and I believe a better system of raising our children.

I'm no cheauvanist, but I think we'd have been better off sticking with a single breadwinner per household. Keeping it a single sex would make for a simpler societal arrangement but isn't necessary. I'd even go so far as to say that women would be better in the home specifically on the issue of raising children, as most women I've known have been better nurturers than most men.

All together, I think the spouse in the home - male or female - has an easier life than the breadwinner. There's no boss, there's no office politics, there's no competition for jobs, etc. It's not all poolside daiquiris and naps, but it's certainly lower stress than "working for a living".

Female here, and I agree with you. In my case my husband would be a better stay-at-home than I would but I still would prefer to stay-at-home than be working like I am (we have no kids so neither of us actually stays at home.) And no disrespect to stay-at-homes; my mom was a full time mom and teacher for me and my siblings and it wasn't easy work in the least.

I would love to stay at home

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Oh course, they're not as happy. They have to work now. Working always sucked ass, I'm not sure why they thought it didn't! So much horseshit with work. Man, if it was an option I'd stay home all day and bake and cook and raise kids. And I don't even like cooking, baking nor am I that great with kids. I don't have to fill out forms every time I need to wipe a kids ass, or worry about being promoted to head baker. I don't have to go to a meeting decide how to fold laundry or sit in traffic. No office politics, hell, only ONE other person to answer too! And if I want to get drunk at 2pm I'm going to do it.

About the only thing that really blows ass for the old arrangement is you don't really have any money/power. But you know what they say about power? "With great power comes a great drinking problem." Thats right. And today's divorce courts who really has the power?

I think the whole idea of the movement was they lacked choices, which they did. Of course, they still do. Now that most women can work they have too. I'm not sure who would have signed up if you said that was the end result though. But cheer up! At least you can afford a cool car with the second salary. You'll need it, that traffic is a bastard and I need you to pick the kids up from daycare on the way home.

n yusef, leave Riven alone and go after this guy. Find real bias where real bias is.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: TehMac
It's because Feminists have filled their heads with a lot of bull shit nonsense. People tried to talk sense to them about it, but they immediately set about yelling their ideas louder. Some women joined eagerly in a militant attempt to re-identify themselves. Others became confused, "realizing" that they should feel bad because they wanted to serve their husband (and ideally, vice versa).

That is the problem, instead of society focusing on the positives of each individual, we perverted those positives (being a good wife, serving/loving your man (vice versa)) and now a woman who wants to stay at home and cook and clean feels guilty about that.

No wonder the Islamists point and laugh at our 'corrupt' culture; we're attempting to defy nearly 20,000 thousand years of anthropological development in a mere 40-50 years! I'm all for individual rights, women's suffrage, etc., but at some point the line needs be drawn or else our society's fabric will just implode into a bunch of unhappy marriages and people only willing to please themselves.

Obviously not an objectivist

 

[Alienwho]

Unfortunately, the feminist movement F'd themselves over as well as their families. The introduction of dual income families has made everything in general more expensive. A typical single income family can barely keep their heads above poverty level. Additionally, if the woman insists on working that means your kids are going to be raised by strangers who teach them their own values.

I'm glad my wife doesn't buy into the whole 'independent woman' tripe. My wife is very smart and very hardworking and specifically chose a career that would allow her to work when she wants (dental hygienist). We don't have kids yet, but when we do she can simply work while the kids are at school if she wants. She'll have the option of working if she gets satisfaction out of that or if we run into difficult times and need the extra income. If she was career obsessed like some of the women who work in my office, well, that would never work out. And I can tell you these career oriented women in my office who work with the goal of rising to the top sure don't look happy to me. The women in my office who work out of necessity, or because they have free time (empty nesters/no kids yet but are planning) seem a lot happier.

 

[hans030390]

This would probably explain why many things about my parents and my family worked out so well. My dad worked full time and makes quite a bit of money. My mom has worked part time for most of her life (if not all, currently working 2 days a week). She generally keeps up the house and all that, though my dad is also a pretty hard worker and tends to work on the house even after work. She's also the one that's usually been around to raise the kids and such.

Of course, I've seen families that work just fine with both parents working full-time. I've also seen families that suck because the mom is totally lazy (along with not having a job).

Hm. I never thought about this. It COULD explain some things about my family. At the very least, it made me realize how "old-fashioned" my family is. Heh.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Oh course, they're not as happy. They have to work now. Working always sucked ass, I'm not sure why they thought it didn't! So much horseshit with work. Man, if it was an option I'd stay home all day and bake and cook and raise kids. And I don't even like cooking, baking nor am I that great with kids. I don't have to fill out forms every time I need to wipe a kids ass, or worry about being promoted to head baker. I don't have to go to a meeting decide how to fold laundry or sit in traffic. No office politics, hell, only ONE other person to answer too! And if I want to get drunk at 2pm I'm going to do it.

About the only thing that really blows ass for the old arrangement is you don't really have any money/power. But you know what they say about power? "With great power comes a great drinking problem." Thats right. And today's divorce courts who really has the power?

I think the whole idea of the movement was they lacked choices, which they did. Of course, they still do. Now that most women can work they have too. I'm not sure who would have signed up if you said that was the end result though. But cheer up! At least you can afford a cool car with the second salary. You'll need it, that traffic is a bastard and I need you to pick the kids up from daycare on the way home.

Lol, this post is win for so many reasons.

Epic. :thumbsup:

:beer: