Split Thread Are post-feminism women happier?

[lomiller]

Liberalism seems quite happy with allowing the advertising and sale of products that harm people, but that people want to buy, like fast food. Is there a degree of harm where liberalism draws the line? 6% of adults in the US apparently have some kind of alcohol use disorder, should the sale of alcohol not be allowed... 100,000 people die due to alcohol every year... it clearly harms people.

Also, who says who is harming who? If some guy has crack and I want to buy it, and I don't see it as harm... you are going to step in and say it is harm? That sounds kind of paternalistic. Who are you to tell me what is going to make me happy?

When you defined classical liberalism and said "Your right to swing your fists around without interference ends at the tip of my nose." You meant that even if I give you permission to hit me in the nose, classical liberalism wouldn't allow it?

Liberalism is pragmatic. The default position on drugs, is typical that they are a personal decision, but another liberal may point out that in cases of addiction it's questionable whether people are really making that decision of their own free will. Still others may say drugs are ok so long as you don't undertake activities where impairment could result in you harming someone else.

These are all fundamentally liberal positions that need to have the pros and cons weighed against each other on a case by case basis. The conclusion need not be the same in every case because details matter.

WRT women's rights it's impossible to compare. Even if the individual choices make for less individual happiness that doesn't make it ok to take choice away. Furthermore, the more people who can actively make choices the better the chance that we can approximate the best overall compromises because when fewer people have this type of agency they invariably tilt things in their own favor.

The changes in women's rights over the last century have made things better for everyone and on the whole everyone is happier as a result, even if they can't easily track the improvements back to the source.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The entire premise of the question seems utterly ridiculous to me, that you can pick one social factor and suggest it is the primary driver of whether a group of people feels happy. You really want to know if women feel better off with strides in female equality? Ask them what they prefer. Would they choose to turn back the clock on those rights?

Yeah, that's why I'm not talking to any women.

 

[theprestige]

Ah, this merry-go-round again. Human rights are axiomatic. It's always come down to statements of faith.

If that's your objection, then what? Can you come with even one moral "should" or "ought" that isn't ultimately a statement of faith?

That's what I thought.

 

[Darat]

"Happiness" is not only subjective but relative, as humans we seem to have evolved so that whatever environment we are in becomes our normal/zero point. So prisoners still experience happiness, there is happiness in concentration camps although from "outside" i.e. our environment that would appear to be impossible.

 

[shuttlt]

"Happiness" is not only subjective but relative, as humans we seem to have evolved so that whatever environment we are in becomes our normal/zero point. So prisoners still experience happiness, there is happiness in concentration camps although from "outside" i.e. our environment that would appear to be impossible.

Does it normalise in the way where if you'd asked Anne Frank in the last few weeks of here life whether she was happy, or satisfied with her life you wouldn't maybe have perceived a measurable drop compared to if you'd asked here in 1940?

Let's suppose we had surveyed the girl trying to unclog the fouled drail in The Road to Wigan Pier living in filthy freezing poverty, are we saying that Orwell is wrong, and the conditions of her life don't actually have any overall impact on her happiness. She isn't actually any less happy than if she had been born a Duchess?

It feels like you are moving from my argument that the conditions of life can be more or less conducive to happiness, to saying "no, there can be moments of happiness anywhere". If you are arguing the former, I think you are wrong. If you are arguing the latter, then I don't see the relevance.

Incidentally, I will try to respond to more posts on this thread soon, I have been busy.

 

[gnome]

That's what I thought.

...that we probably won't solve philosophy forever here in this thread? If so you were right. Not sure what that leads to.

 

[shuttlt]

Liberalism is pragmatic. The default position on drugs, is typical that they are a personal decision, but another liberal may point out that in cases of addiction it's questionable whether people are really making that decision of their own free will. Still others may say drugs are ok so long as you don't undertake activities where impairment could result in you harming someone else.

Liberalism as it actually exists and operates in the world is not pragmatic. A liberal who holds modest, limited views has no more relevance to liberalism as it operates in the world than some lonely hermit in 1500 would have had on the direction of Catholicism.

It has been centuries now of undermining everything that orders the life of individuals and society other than the state and the market. This process has been relentless. Any custom or institution that stands in opposition to the short term gratification of the individual and the expansion of the market is a problem that the state has to be empowered to overcome. The market demands that these barriers to trade be removed as progressives demand that these outdated restrictions on the individual be lifted, and the state expands to do the job and fill the gap. Every year that goes by the resistance to this process gets weaker.

There used to be an ideal of liberty that was about the individual mastering himself and through self restraint becoming free. Now liberty is the un-self mastering individual being validated and encouraged.

These are all fundamentally liberal positions that need to have the pros and cons weighed against each other on a case by case basis. The conclusion need not be the same in every case because details matter.

This isn't what actually happens though. This is part of the rationalistic fantasy. What actually happens is an unending process of traditions, culture, everything that stands in the way of the state and the market being stripped away. That is what liberalism is in the world.

WRT women's rights it's impossible to compare. Even if the individual choices make for less individual happiness that doesn't make it ok to take choice away.

Why? We are all constrained in our choices in some way. There is no neutral society for us to make choices in. 100 years of more and more sophisticated advertising has not been about giving us a free choice. Google's algorithm is not about giving us free choice. These things are about nudging us, encouraging us, hiding possibilities from us so that we make choices that are good for the market. What liberalism does is keep tearing down things that stand in the way of this process.

Furthermore, the more people who can actively make choices the better the chance that we can approximate the best overall compromises because when fewer people have this type of agency they invariably tilt things in their own favor.

This is weird. My whole life I've heard about poor people who vote right wing are being tricked into voting against their own interests. What tends to happen over and over again is that in a completely free market, a small number of organised people end up holding all the chips and then they make sure the market is no longer free. That happens in culture at least as much as anywhere else. It's been the story for at least 3000 years.

The changes in women's rights over the last century have made things better for everyone and on the whole everyone is happier as a result, even if they can't easily track the improvements back to the source.

Is everybody on the whole happier? This is looping us back around to where we came in. I think the papers I've looked at say that community and safety are the two most important things for happiness. We've systematically undermined community, and with that the individual becomes a free floating entity in the zero sum game of the market, free, sure.... but happy?

 

[shuttlt]

Yeah, that's why I'm not talking to any women.

Just to be clear. That was a joke predicated on the fact that I was clearly talking to you and Rolfe and, while I haven't had independent verification, I believe both you both identify as women.

 

[shuttlt]

IMO liberals are more pragmatic and willing to look at when\where\how individual liberties break down and become a new negative to overall levels of freedom within society.

Libertarians, conversely, take a more idealistic approach and are strictly dogmatic about not placing any restrictions on individuals even if the net result is much lower levels of freedom overall.

You are using Liberal here to refer to the political tribe in the US. I am using it to refer to Liberalism, the political philosophy connected to the Enlightenment. Libertarianism is a type of liberalism.

 

[shuttlt]

I think, today, very few women, even very conservative women, would be opposed to laws forbidding women to adopt certain professions. I'm not sure what other laws that are considered "feminist" today that might be opposed by conservatives, especially conservative woment.

Well, the survey's I've seen in Texas seem to indicate that quite a lot of women are in favour of more restrictions on abortion there. Most of this stuff is too late to fight anymore, even if one disagrees with it. The basic problem is that the whole of the West sees the world through liberal glasses that assume liberalism is a good thing that makes the world better, and views the negatives as unfortunate accidents caused by corrupt or incompetent implementation or something. It's like arguing against the cultural assumptions underpinned by ancestor worship in Athens in 1000BC.

Similarly with gay rights. And then of course there were those bogeymen that people made up about the Equal Rights Amendment. It was all phony of course, but a couple of years ago I went back and read some anti-ERA literature from back in those days. Do you know that some people were saying that if the ERA passed, courts would end up saying that two men could marry each other, or that men could use women's bathrooms? Yeah. Ridiculous, right? How could anyone believe that kind of nonsense?

The slippery slope is slippery. Everything flows in one direction.

 

[shuttlt]

The entire premise of the question seems utterly ridiculous to me, that you can pick one social factor and suggest it is the primary driver of whether a group of people feels happy. You really want to know if women feel better off with strides in female equality? Ask them what they prefer. Would they choose to turn back the clock on those rights?

Read the thread. This isn't what I have claimed and it has been addressed multiple times already.

 

[gnome]

Pardon me, I thought you were trying to make a point of some kind. You were just idly curious about the happiness level of women since the arbitrary point of "post-feminism" and didn't mean to imply any kind of link?

 

[Meadmaker]

I think, today, very few women, even very conservative women, would be opposed to laws forbidding women to adopt certain professions..

I just saw this post quoted, and, reading it, realized I had screwed up the negatives. What I meant was that very few women would support laws forbidding women to adopt certain professions. i.e. Almost every woman, including conservative women, opposes workplace discrimination based on sex today.

 

[shuttlt]

Pardon me, I thought you were trying to make a point of some kind. You were just idly curious about the happiness level of women since the arbitrary point of "post-feminism" and didn't mean to imply any kind of link?

No, but the entire thread has been a repeated explanation of why asking women "does x make you happier" is no good. Again, the graph shows women in the US have been steadily getting unhappier since 1972. This is a well known phenomenon called "the paradox of declining female happiness". Feminism has changed society in immeasurable ways. We only live one life. Somebody saying "had I grown up in a different set of circumstances, I would have been less happy" is simply a belief that the cultural assumptions of one's culture are the correct ones. Again, data indicates women were happier than men in 1972 and are now less happy than men. Data that feminism has made women happier is of the same level as testimonials for homeopathy.

The argument in favour of feminism having made women happier is circular. It assumes what the things are that should make women happier, and then points to them having been delivered. Are they in fact happier? Emily's Cat was saying "no" earlier and raised some interesting questions that I'm still thinking about (I found a new book related to the topic).

 

[shuttlt]

I just saw this post quoted, and, reading it, realized I had screwed up the negatives. What I meant was that very few women would support laws forbidding women to adopt certain professions. i.e. Almost every woman, including conservative women, opposes workplace discrimination based on sex today.

Conservative women overwhelmingly believe in liberalism. We are using the words differently. Conservative women are less far along the process because they tend to exist in a world containing more traditional cultural structures. Inevitably those cultural structure will be eroded, and they will be drawn in the same direction as the progressive liberals, just somewhat more slowly.

 

[Paul2]

No, but the entire thread has been a repeated explanation of why asking women "does x make you happier" is no good. Again, the graph shows women in the US have been steadily getting unhappier since 1972. This is a well known phenomenon called "the paradox of declining female happiness". Feminism has changed society in immeasurable ways. We only live one life. Somebody saying "had I grown up in a different set of circumstances, I would have been less happy" is simply a belief that the cultural assumptions of one's culture are the correct ones. Again, data indicates women were happier than men in 1972 and are now less happy than men. Data that feminism has made women happier is of the same level as testimonials for homeopathy.

Earlier, you agreed that the data did not show that it was feminism is the thing making women unhappier:

Again, society was upended because of feminism and women are less happy.

Correlation is not causation, even if there is an identifiable link between something in the cause and something in the effect.

I agree. I am not claiming that the data shows that.

That we haven't seen data that feminism has made women happier is not an implication that feminism has made women unhappier, because we don't have data for that, either. And, if there is no implication - either way - then there no paradox, there is only a direction for further research.

 

[theprestige]

...that we probably won't solve philosophy forever here in this thread? If so you were right. Not sure what that leads to.

A dead end. shuttlt's line of inquiry leads to a dead end. Now we've arrived, and the thread is just going to bang its head against that wall for a bit. Already arguing about what definition of liberalism should apply, and making up just so stories about it being essentially pragmatic... What's the point? If shuttlt thinks it's essentially an unsupported belief system, AND he has no other preferred belief system to offer in its place, what's the point?

 

[shuttlt]

Earlier, you agreed that the data did not show that it was feminism is the thing making women unhappier

No, indeed and I standby that. The world is too complicated a place to associate the two with great certainty. There are hints of course in the association between community and safety with happiness.... but far too much has changed for a graph to prove that. I don't think I'm the one making the strong claim though/ I must have argued this 5 times already. The point of the graph is that, given the claims of feminism about the deplorable state of women's lives in the past and how much they have been able to change them, it is rather surprising, one might almost say paradoxical (though obviously not in the formal sense), that the graph goes the wrong way.

That we haven't seen data that feminism has made women happier is not an implication that feminism has made women unhappier, because we don't have data for that, either. And, if there is no implication - either way - then there no paradox, there is only a direction for further research.

Again, given the narrative of feminism about the patriarchy and how limited women's choices where and how oppressive life was for women, and then the huge systematic changes that have been pushed through to remedy this.... it is surprising that women in the US are now more unhappy not less. Also, given how oppressive the world of 1972 was, it seems strange that women were happier with their lives then than men.

If this doesn't call into question the underlying assumptions, what would? Is the remedy always to be more and stronger preparations of the medicine we have been giving the patient as they decline? Perhaps the patient tells us that they can feel the medicine doing them good, and yet every day their pulse is weaker than the day before. What would have to happen to question the assumptions of feminism?

 

[Paul2]

No, indeed and I standby that. The world is too complicated a place to associate the two with great certainty. There are hints of course in the association between community and safety with happiness.... but far too much has changed for a graph to prove that. I don't think I'm the one making the strong claim though/ I must have argued this 5 times already. The point of the graph is that, given the claims of feminism about the deplorable state of women's lives in the past and how much they have been able to change them, it is rather surprising, one might almost say paradoxical (though obviously not in the formal sense), that the graph goes the wrong way.

All that surprise comes from is not realizing that there are too many variables to account for, and thinking that the obvious connection between women, their happiness, and feminism means that feminism caused the decline in women's happiness. Which is, to say, there's no real reason for surprise.

Again, given the narrative of feminism about the patriarchy and how limited women's choices where and how oppressive life was for women, and then the huge systematic changes that have been pushed through to remedy this.... it is surprising that women in the US are now more unhappy not less. Also, given how oppressive the world of 1972 was, it seems strange that women were happier with their lives then than men.

It's only surprising if one doesn't understand that women's unhappiness could hypothetically have been much greater if not for feminism. It's surprising only on a very naive perspective.

If this doesn't call into question the underlying assumptions, what would?

Taking into account all major factors that might also have played a role in decreasing women's happiness. Whether that is practical is another question.

Is the remedy always to be more and stronger preparations of the medicine we have been giving the patient as they decline? Perhaps the patient tells us that they can feel the medicine doing them good, and yet every day their pulse is weaker than the day before. What would have to happen to question the assumptions of feminism?

You're implying the conclusions from the very data that you otherwise say don't exist.

 

[shuttlt]

A dead end. shuttlt's line of inquiry leads to a dead end. Now we've arrived, and the thread is just going to bang its head against that wall for a bit. Already arguing about what definition of liberalism should apply, and making up just so stories about it being essentially pragmatic... What's the point? If shuttlt thinks it's essentially an unsupported belief system, AND he has no other preferred belief system to offer in its place, what's the point?

Well, none of us are in a position to upend society... so all of these threads are ultimately about whether a particular thought is interesting or not. Your question presupposes the liberal world view where you create some version of Plato's Republic that you try to convince everybody of. The desire to do this, and the belief that this is a sensible thing to do, is the problem. Actual societies are local and specific. Liberalism is universal and, like the Borg, attempts to turn all other systems into itself.

I can point out the flaws in the panopticon, why it is inhuman and perverse, without being able myself to design an ideal prison, or for that matter, believing that an idea prison is possible. Liberalism, as it operates in the world, believes in the perfectibility of man. I say that this is a pernicious idea because of X, Y and Z consequences and that man is in fact not perfectible. It is no answer to say "well, how would you perfect man". The whole problem is that the project is a fantasy.

I've told you all already, if you look at papers on happiness, community and safety seem to be very important. You also need some kind of religious or quasi religious belief in the legitimising myth of the society that the vast majority of people within the society buy in to. I can give you criteria that societies appear to need to be stable and happy, but I can't give you a recipe, because that is specific to the people and place and conditions that you are creating it in. At the moment the current liberal order is far too strong. It would be like trying to start an independent kingdom a mile away from first century Rome.

At some point liberalism will fall under the weight of all this, and something new will appear. I see the lack of faith in the legitimacy of institutions as a very bad sign for the survival of the current system. On past form, probably some kind of authoritarian conservative system that claims to be liberal, but isn't will be next. Kings often ally with the people against the aristocracy, so maybe it won't be so bad?