Let's look at the greediest corporations. Facebook, Google, Bayer, Microsoft, apple. I'm not sure any of those are run by Republicans. Why can't Democrats recognize this either?
The person that cures diabetes or cancer or defangs Putin or Xi probably has a very supportive loving mother or did. And if you were asking this person on the day that they cured cancer or whatever who they owe their success to the first person they would think of is most likely their mother. It may not be a glamorous job but I still think it's one of the most important ones. World dictators will die eventually someone will cure cancer. Part of the reason I have what I have today is because a woman thousands of years ago had a child and that child was my ancestor. Being a mother has far greater reaching effects then anything else you can think of
How about blacks? Do they pine to be slaves? Are all Hispanics yearning to be the Frito Bandito? Is everyone named O'Leary a drunken policeman? Is anybody named Cerevoucuere a cigaret smoking philosopher? Guess who had just those beliefs?
Nah, we can't do that. We have to build a 4000-mile wall in the South, end trade with other countries, and prohibit taxes on anyone making a billion annually
I have no data on the topics you raised. I cannot guess who had those beliefs. I do have data on the unhapiness of women. I can guess who would deny reality in favor of ideology, though.
And there is your mistake, not recognizing human nature. It is a mistake made by Lenin who thought that socialism could succeed only after they produced the "new soviet man."
, So your contention is that women are happier, they just don't know it. Perhaps those unhappy women are really transmen and we should cut off their privates to secure their happiness.
No, my contention is that not all 'studies' are correct for all people at all times. Happiness in particular is very subjective. And now you want to cut off my nieces' private parts because she desires to fly the plane rather than tend to the passengers?
Of course happiness is subjective. And there is less of it among women than there used to be. This, I posit, is because women are being encouraged to enter fields that are unsuitable for them. I don't want anyone's privates cut off. And I am roundly criticized for holding this position.
You are the mistaken one in thinking that humans are determined by their makeup. The only real component of human nature is that we are THINKING creatures and it is our thought that determines our actions. If it is cold we don't evolve fur, we make coats, and thus we are the most successful creatures on the planet (well, except for the ants, and they're a special case). You reduce us to animals when you say our natures are important.
It really doesn't matter which sex I identify as, as it it is society that determines what is accepted as male/female. Of course, folks can call themselves whatever they wish, but if they choose incorrectly, they will suffer the consequences [as it should be].
I am not really caught up in the duality of all things like so many people seem to be these days. Things have for an infinite number of reasons. My observation was that women are achieving the exact opposite of what many set out to find.
Women may be miserable because random men might grab them by the genitalia following the boast of Donald Trump, so they are drearily wary around males.
By who? That is the biggest strawman ever. No one is saying that surgery is necessary in any but the most extreme instances, usually where a real hermaphrodite was poorly assigned at birth and almost NEVER with minor children.
What was the point of your comment about dark periods in history about? This is a thread about women and how you think they are not as happy as they were in history. So, were any of these dark periods you claim due to any women?
I see that economics is not your thing. What sent a lot of women to work in the 60's, 70's, and 80's was a combination of factors [the way it always is]. It was not the corporations raising prices, it was the FED once again working its magic with monetary policy [and its reaction]. The monetary and price inflation of the late 70's which turned into the interest spike of the early 80's made one income difficult, although many families prioritized raising their kids and doing with less. And then throw in the tsunami of divorces as women really wanted to live the good life! The decision to have both parents work set into motion a series of events that society has yet to come to terms with, and as a matter of observation, nobody really seemed to care a great deal that the children of this society were thrown under the bus and pretty much raised themselves [as the adults returned to their childhood state and made having fun the main focus of their lives]. It was corporations that attempted to take the responsibility of raising the kids [in the parents' absence] to the degree that young people walk around like zombies staring at their phones and little else, albeit quite obedient to the invisible man.
Many people assume that things always get better. It's what corporations sell...the notion of "a better life." What I was saying is that women [who are not happy campers to begin with] have been sold this bill of goods that suggests that the meaning of life is to be "happy." This is marketing, not actual life. Adult life is difficult for everybody. If you try to make your life about attempting to attain happiness [instead of taking on responsibility], you are guaranteed to be miserable.
So people by their own thinking, is they don't want to be happy. They only want to be happy because some corporation marketed it to them that they should be happy? Which marketing is that? Why can't people be responsible and happy at the same time? Is your life better than it was 20 yrs ago? Is your life better than your parents? Do you have kids? Is their life better than yours was when you were their age?
