IDEAS

...

IC crashed, then double-posted me! JJ probably hired a woman to maintain his server :o

Happiness is relative

Dear Midwesty

I won't be able to analyze your article or write an inclusive, organized and reasonable argument as Ms Azad has done, but I needed to throw in my two cents because I see your argument and the report that you provided flawed.

Happiness is a relative term. A prisoner feels happiness during the one hour/day recess that allows him to breath fresh air and sit in the son, you on the other hand may walk for hours in the sun and think of the stock market and feel unhappy. Would it be fair to say that they're "happier" people than you?

A woman might have been happy depending on a man for her well being and to cook and clean and take care of the kids because that was the extend of what she could accomplish. Nowadays, a woman who does the same work at home, has to fight the glass ceiling too, put up with discrimination at work, watch her male coworker get promoted instead of her, and worked twice as hard to just "prove herself" and not feel very happy. Does that mean she would be happier not being independent? Think again!

You and the report you enclosed are pretending that the women's movement for equal rights is done and won! Let me tell you a secret my friend, we've got a long way to go before a woman earns the same money for the same job, be treated equally on a personal level or be respected for her accomplishments like a man is. Women have fought for equal rights because that's what they want "their rights" and to be considered "equal". We have come a long way from the medieval times but we're not there yet.

So if you want to know why women are not happy, don't go blaming the feminist movement, instead look at your own one-sided view of the society and put yourself in a woman's shoes for a minute. We're doing the traditional jobs of both man and woman and we still have to prove ourselves every step of the way! 

I won't go into the flawed nature and pie examples, as it's already been covered. But please don't refer to the television sitcoms to make a point. That was quite lame.  It's like watching "the biggest loser" and claiming that most Americans are losing 50 lbs a week on average!

IRANdokht

On selfishness of men in general&Irani dudes in particular

 Women's happiness!! , here is an example which might solve the mystery.We got divorced when she was 3.When my daughter was four, my ex decided to leave the country & marry an paranoid freak. I objected to her taking the child to live with that abusive step dad so she gave me an option ; "either put up or take care of the child full time on your own" .I chose the latter and %99.999 of my male friends discouraged me making this so called dumb decision by saying things like ; " how the hell you are going to do this with no family around to support you...think about your bussiness, how you going to take care of it.how about your aspirations?.how about your great social life?..you are still young and how about women, fun, party and pleasures how about ..etc " They were all afterall right to the point.It was as if my every day life was like being a one armed man fighting champs in the ring, my buss sank in couple of yrs, my social life drowned ,my aspiration a mere foot note and my only consol was my princess..it,s only now @ 11 that i,m enjoying a bit of freedom.

So Women;s happiness?..Now my case was an odd exception so now think about those %95 of divorced women who have to put their aspirations and life on hold to raise kids for the dudes  so they can play this hero role of provider father & ex husband while the real hard job and sacrifice is being done by the poor women who are practicaly given a life sentence  while the dudes go around acting like a teenager , free and world as their oyster. Now I ask dudes to put their money where their mouth is and tell me if they would do the same as their ex did and sacrifice their youth to raise their kids.

haa, , would you or other brothers have done that and miss all the free life styles, travel, drinkin,smokin women & playing a hero dad for the sake of raising the kid or you would do as my pals did and dump em on their mothers to do it for you free of charge. I know the answer I have many buddies..so thats women's happiness for you pal. Neshestim payeh goad migim lengesh kon.

Cheers!!!

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

You are a...

You are a macho-chauvinist in closet Midwesty!

 You made a nice point though, true, nature rejects equality and as we humans according to your brilliant mind must follow nature's rule of the jungle, how about you try your self-centered jungle rule first? That is  "justice in practice" after all isn't it? :)

 Here's what you gotta do to prove your brilliant idea really works:

According to nature and natural rules which  like what you said are more in tune with JUSTICE rather than the un-natural EQUALITY people all over the world are fighting for, wild beasts such as lions consume more meat (read apple pie) and we humans really don't need that much of this calorie intake, as some scientists even argue that our teeth were not designed to consume meat. According to your natural laws then we MUST offer up our lives ( read apple pie) in the sake of providing justice ( read apple pie! ) for these endangered creatures, or other species we have been killing for so long.

So, when are you ready to go to the lion's den of our evil feministic choice? :)

JJ, I thought about what you said and found out...

What you said is brilliant. I think it is core of a family-centered family law. They look at every one in the family equally. This is the time equality is also justice.

Also I assum all religions emphasize on the point that marriage is voluntarily and not mandatory.

Thanks,

did anybody actually read the report?

Any comment that why it is that women are not happier?

JJ, Agree

100%.But it's like opinion versus journalism.  Who knows what it is that we everyday hear from the media? Opinion of the reporter or the facts about what really happened...mostly a miss match of both....Feminist have come up with lots of limited researches that applies to, for example 99% of their sampling group of 50 people, and since it applies to thoes it applies to all...now let's make a law around it.

People and laws

Laws and ideologies cannot protect or break up families. A family is based on the union of two individuals who agree on building a future with love and care. If there is no love or desire to live together after the passage of time, nothing can or should get in the way of separation.

A loveless family is not the kind of environment that helps the growth and development of children. If one parent is unhappy -- for any reason -- the judicial system should not prevent them from seeking to live independently.

I really don't know what feminism is, to tell you the truth. But I know that all human beings should be treated equal -- and that's not an "ism" it's common sense and a universal right.

Take it easy Azadeh...

I wrote this to stir some debate against a tabooed subject. Remember, nothing is sacred here.

1- No ideology is sacred. Ideologies come and go. Ideologies tend to dominate and wipe out the rivals.

2- Mafia originally was a movement against Nazi. Then it became a social problem.

3- Women's right yes, women's right in cost of demonizing men NO! (Demonizing a group of people categorically is also a characteristic of an ideology.

4- Main characteristic of an ideologue is, he/she can't stand criticism against his/her ideology so he/she starts labeling the opposition groups.

5- If equality for women means equal access (no discrimination), then it is justice not a blind equality, although it has the wording EQUALITY in it. Equality means you keep resources away from other active members of the society at the front door and reserve it for the time maybe a prospective new member shows up at the bakery. Keeping aside some percentage of US federal contracts for women owned businesses where people have found backdoors to abuse the system better.

I agree with you that Feminism was a solution at the time. I also agree with you on what you said about building block of the modern society, So we moved from tribes to families and now individuals. What's next? And who knows someday maybe one of the next gen supporter label you as dangerous feminist. So when are we going to forbid Thanksgiving dinner or Nourooz party then?

I wont answer again because anytime I open my mouth people stop talking, why is that?

Lets have a constructive debate no matter how sacred we feel our idealogies are.

Equality per nature?

 Good catch Azadeh

How about I let poor lions & Tigers you caged(un-naturaly) come out and eat the crap outta you since after all it,s natural rule of nature for them to roam free on planet earth and prey on weaker specie since it,s their planet too. haa? how about that genious? would you want protection under the law against lions & tigers then you strong man. You have minimum clue . I want less dudes like you in a planet that my daughter will grow up in. & whats with the Iranian mahjabeh pic, whats that got to do with feminity in idustrialized world?...or may you are trying to send a subtle ommatie msg here that it,s not so bad in ommatestan.

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Azadeh

I find myself agreeing with most of what you wrote too, so something must be wrong! I admit I found midwesty's argumentation confusing, so I read between the lines and tried to figure out what he was really trying to say. Maybe I got it wrong. Or maybe you were too hard on the guy :)

A Chauvi-Nazi Manifesto

Your wordings and turn of phrases are ambiguous and sometimes absurd. It is generally hard to understand what you are trying to say. It is probably because you are trying to develop sociological ideas without the use of conceptual tools and specific methodology. However, I tried my best to understand you.

An example of absurd assertion in your article is the following:

"Although feminism might be dressed up as a modern problem that a male dominated world is facing today, it is in the same old category of what is a right and what is a privilege?"

Feminism is not a problem but a solution. The problem is the male-dominated world that women of the world are facing today as they did yesterday. And why does your sentence ends in a question mark?

You ask "What is justice and what is equality?" And try to answer the question. For the definition of equality, you give the example of a pie in a room with 12 people and you say:

"you must equally divide and share the pie amongst all whether they request a slice of the pie or not."

In reality, people must be allowed and able to request a slice of the pie and to get one when they request it. It does not mean that they would be forced to get it "whether they request a slice of the pie or not."

Then you try to use the same example of pie in a room with 12 people to define Justice:

"However in a room where justice is practiced, the share of the pie will be different based on some quantitative metrics, such as the level of calories needed for a person to function at the same level of other attendees in the room."

And you ask us how we can reconcile the idea of equality with that of justice:

"It seems a just system needs to be tweaked. Where in an equality-based system would the judge rest his/her case on an easy judgment with one shot? What is then to blame in a blind process?"

To solve the dilemma, you discard the idea of equality:

"Equality is not natural. Nature does not treat everyone the same. There are many factors involved in becoming a unique individual in nature’s photo album. It needs lots of tries and effort to pass other competitors to cut the red tape and overcome the odds. In addition, it is not practical. No matter how hard you try you cannot find two exact moments, places and resources to give rise to two identical outcomes. Therefore other than the mind of the creators of this ideology, there is no external world that can give birth to this idea of equality."

You are not making sense. Concepts and ideas are not natural, they are all human-made. Human laws usually do not imitate natural laws, a.k.a.. The Law of the Jungle.

Equality does not mean resemblance. It means equality of opportunity, equality of access to resources, equality of choices. Your example applies only to resemblance.

Human society itself is NOT a natural phenomenon; it is created by human beings, basically by curtailing their natural instincts such as aggression, promiscuous sexuality, and cannibalism. Furthermore, human beings construct concepts, ideas and ideals that both transcend the nature and remain intertwined with it. Hence the false opposition of Nature versus Nurture (or Culture). It is impossible to find any behaviour in human beings and among them that is purely natural or purely social. Your idea that "equality is not natural" because it cannot be found in the nature, is a fallacy. You cannot conclude that the idea of equality is not valid just because "there is no external world that can give birth to this idea of equality." Such assertion is absurd. Every single idea is conceived in the mind of human beings.

Then, you try to elaborate on the concept of justice:

"A just system that works to share apple pies can’t be used to share resources in a health care system. In order to have a just health care system you have to invent its own fair system of users’ accesses and utilization."

You are trying to say that justice means: to each according to their needs.

"So it is true about the outcome of a fair system, that it cannot produce instantaneous and tangible results right from the beginning. It requires patience and cares to get the justice tree to bear fruits."

You are trying to say that while the idea of equality is abstract and easy, the idea of justice is concrete and complex.

At this point, you pose a simplistic question:

"So, are women equal to men?"

Your answer is negative. No two human beings are alike. A simple and obvious answer to a simplistic question.

Your defence of the idea of Justice and rejection of the idea of Equality is expressed in a very strange way:

"Let’s not fall for the media hype and sexually hungry politicians who mislead us by diverting the subject of justice-for-all to a non-existing ideology of equality."

What does equality between the sexes have to do with "sexually hungry politicians"? Anyway, after these politicians, you go after feminists:

"By appealing to women to gain more happiness, feminists have tried to establish a system based on equality for the last 40 years."

Feminists were and are mostly women, and there were / are as many feminisms as there were / are women feminists. Women have questioned their oppression by the patriarchal system because they wanted to live like *adult human beings* and as *free social agents*. They constructed their own concepts of happiness as they fought against sexism. It was not like there was a tiny group of feminists with a hidden agenda out there to lure women into believing in the idea of gender equality. It is radically simplistic to say that feminists were "appealing to women to gain more happiness". I am one of those women and feminists of the last 40 years and I have always preferred to be a Suffering Free Woman than a Happy Slave. The report on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness" is not a valid criterion for assessing the achievements of the Women’s Movement because happiness or subjective well-being cannot be used to assess social change. Your argument is basically reactionary, similar to comparing the happiness of Iranians under the feudal economy with their happiness today under the consumerist economy.

Then you bring up what all pro-patriarchal individuals bring up when attacking the women’s movement: the family.

"The impact of this report’s findings is more terrifying when we compare the gain of the feminist movement compared to what we have lost. One of the biggest impacts of the loss was absorbed by the building block of any society, called family. As a result of feminist movement women are now facing more options and possibilities, therefore escaping the problems. Erasing the question rather than answering it seemed to be a better fit than staying and facing the problems."

 You need to study the historical origins of the family and how and why it replaced the tribe/clan-based and mother-based pre-patriarchal societies.

Family is the building block of every male-dominated society. The building block of a free society is the individual, not the family, and there is no way women are going to go back to their status of domestic slaves in order to satisfy selfish needs of oppressing men or those who are so nostalgic of a past that was horrible and terrifying for women.

And you seem to be more Catholic than the Pope when, after mentioning the "terrifying"(!!!) effects of women’s movement, you say "All these would be an acceptable side effect based on feminist ideology but the decline in women’s happiness is a major blow to this broken belief." Please don’t cry for us. I am one of millions of women who prefer to be an Unhappy Free Person according to the above research than to be a Happy Slave!

After describing how horrible the family situation in the USA is, you begin to speak of men and how "men have to be pushed to consider their women’s happiness in their day-to-day activities. As a result it is men who should be mandated and held accountable for this task not a blind justice system, which is out of touch from every families' situation."

Here you attack the justice system in the industrialised societies because "Currently in the most modern countries the justice system has sets of predefined rulings for the judges that primarily assumes men as the violators." You have not given any concrete example of any specific country, city, date and family case.

You ask for the abolition of any "woman-centered law." Why don’t you give an example of these laws? You want the laws to "prevent the disintegration of families instead of accelerating their dismemberment," without mentioning whose interests the institution of the family, the traditional one that transpires from your write-up,  serves!  You reject equality and are all for justice. Then why don't you try to be just: It is the woman who carries the child for nine months, breast-feeds her and looks after her as her principal care-giver. A just system needs to pay attention to this fact and be woman/mother-centered. The day you men become capable of carrying a baby and breast-feeding her, you can begin speaking of changes in the "woman-centered laws." 

Your outlook and your demands are those of the reactionary Fathers’ Rights Movements in the Western societies. Male-chauvinist men and women consider any fair law "woman-centered," as they cannot tolerate the erosion of male power and the family as an institution that ultimately perpetrates this power.

Your last paragraph is a real fascistic declaration, a Chuavi-Nazi Manifesto, wrapped in the hypocritical shroud of "justice for all" and "human rights". The cornerstone of the new and up-coming industrial societies is individual and not family. I suggest that you study all the fascistic movements such as the Nazi movement and the Islamists movements such as Taliban to see how much they, like you, are worried about the sacred institution of the family and its strengthening and perpetuation. 

A badly written article, representing a dangerous mind!

Azadeh

Hmmm

I think I agree with you for the most part. I was a young child when the women's movement started in the US in the late 1960s. It seems to me that what began as "women's liberation" was a noble and much needed remedy for some serious problems we had at that time. But at some point in the 1970s that movement got hijacked by women with extremist agendas, and they ceased to represent the interests of a majority of American women. For example, I'm pretty sure most American women didn't want men to stop being "gentlemen" on the grounds that it was patronizing towards women. And I'm pretty sure most women didn't want to be expected to pay their own way when they went out on dates. And so on. What most women (in my opinion as a male of course!) wanted was to be able to work decent jobs for decent pay if they wanted to, as opposed to being relegated to secretaries/receptionists/etc. They wanted men to help around the house. They wanted men to help more with raising the kids. They wanted men to treat them more respectfully - rather than condescendingly or worse, abusively. Things like that.

It seems like the feminist movement became discredited in the US sometime during the 1980s, but the damage had been done by then. I was raised by a feminist mom and a feminist step-mom and I probably couldn't change my thinking if I tried. I've actually had women complain to me that I don't "take charge" enough, and that really pisses me off because it seems almost instinctive to me that decisions between men and women are supposed to be made democractically. Women like guys to take charge? WTF is that all about? :o

Oh well. Maybe there's hope for the younger generations.