I think Feminism, like anything else good, has been perverted by some. But I think in general it was a good thing.
So basically what I'm trying to say is that there was a time when women were told "You can't do this, you can only do that" ("this" being things that were considered male like having a job and "that" being things that were considered female like staying at home with the kids). That thinking was wrong. Feminism combated that thinking and said "you can do anything you want" and that was good. So up until that point I think things were good.
But now we have a group that says "You must do that and you're a bad feminist if you do this" (see "this" and "that" explanation above). That's wrong headed. And to bring this topic back around to HN I think a lot of the efforts to get women into technical fields are also wrong headed. Women, like Men, should be exposed to technical fields early on but from there it should be based on their interests. There's no point in trying to force interest that isn't naturally there.
"Feminism is itself a set of social rules that dictate what people can and cannot do, specifically to hinder the male gender. For example, feminism says if a man owns a company, he cannot just hire anyone he wants. Instead he must hire people in accordance with the social rules of feminism. Your attempt to portray feminism as some sort of gender-neutral attempt to lift all boats is as transparently dishonest as the silly lies Patriarchy has told women for thousands of years to keep them in their place. Just be honest and say feminism is an attempt to curtail some freedoms currently enjoyed by men, and transfer them to women."
The author was referring to feminism in light of its real-world aims. The question of whether all feminists are "man-haters" is irrelevant to the question of whether the movement's political activities are best viewed simply as power grabs rather than a pursuit of some mythical ideal of equality.
How about a simple economic explanation for these graphs? If you look at them, you'll notice inflection points during the recession of the 70s and early 90s. The overall downward trend probably reflects well-known rising economic inequality of the past 30 years. Meanwhile, the accelerating decline in female happiness probably reflects the fact that economically, women are still not equal, as evidenced by the persistent wage-gap. So their experience with rising economic inequality has been even worse than that of men.
So, rather than indicating that feminism has been a failure for women, it reflects the fact that feminism has yet to completely succeed.
Of course they are. We went from a country where you could support your entire family, in middle class lifestyle on pretty much a single income. That would get you 2 cars, a house and a retirement. And this wasn't from some high end job, middle class was pretty much achieved by 3/4s of the country.
Now surviving on a single income is next to impossible, unless both parents work.(I'm not counting the 80-100K/yr single earners)
Maybe the population migrating to the United States between 1975 and 1995 were less happy than people who were here at the beginning of that time. Immigration was accelerating over that time period, and it makes sense that new immigrants would be less happy than more established folks.
Have you ever known a characteristically "feminist" woman whom you'd describe as "pleasant"? Feminism does not lead to fulfilling life-choices. Computer science, for example, is not the most emotionally fulfilling career around for women, even though they're constantly being hectored by well-meaning "feminists" to go into it. On that subject at least, most women vote with their feet.
The current sexual politics of soft polygamy, created mainly by feminism, benefits no one except for a few "alpha" males. It's terrible for the majority of men. It's terrible for children. It's terrible for women over the age of 25.
"Soul-destroying" is the best term for the modern dating scene. Be prepared to sleep with a lot of women before you find someone to marry (who has also slept with a lot of people and who has wound up rather damaged from it all). If you're lucky, she may be young enough to have kids without the help of too many fertility treatments, and you'll have a few blissful years before she divorces you and takes the kids and the money.
Wow, how did you get 6 points with a post like this? I feel you've missed what the goal of feminism is and instead focus on militant-feminists who give the movement a bad name, much like militant-atheists do for atheism.
I get 6 points because at least 6 other people here found it insightful.
Now, whatever the "goal" of feminism is doesn't matter. Just like the "goal" of communism never mattered. Results are what matter. And the results of feminism have been terrible for almost everyone.
So basically what I'm trying to say is that there was a time when women were told "You can't do this, you can only do that" ("this" being things that were considered male like having a job and "that" being things that were considered female like staying at home with the kids). That thinking was wrong. Feminism combated that thinking and said "you can do anything you want" and that was good. So up until that point I think things were good.
But now we have a group that says "You must do that and you're a bad feminist if you do this" (see "this" and "that" explanation above). That's wrong headed. And to bring this topic back around to HN I think a lot of the efforts to get women into technical fields are also wrong headed. Women, like Men, should be exposed to technical fields early on but from there it should be based on their interests. There's no point in trying to force interest that isn't naturally there.