Well, you see, men and women are different. They have different natures. Raising a family is much more important to women than to men. So they are unhappier when that desire is thwarted by feminist ideologues.
I'm not the one trying to defend the basic thrust of a thread entitled Women Are Miserable with no evidence offered save one guy's "observations" Right, and all the blacks need a cotton field, all the Italians a pasta kitchen and every Frenchmen will be happy nowhere else than a vineyard They should let things like engineering and math to we Americans,
In fact as the social imperative that assumes women need children to be fulfilled becomes less powerful, more women are entering the workplace with every intention to stay and compete as an equal. Otherwise they find family or a childminder. The idea of a woman staying at home is very much a minority view. If women are unhappy they change their circumstances. They are not locked into a life, which is the first time in history allows her that choice. And they appreciate it. So guilt tripping and suggesting they are too stupid to organise their own lives to the point of being unhappy . What they may be unhappy about is being patronised and paid less than her male counterpart.
Highly intelligent people are a dime a dozen, but the number of people who are able to live their lives in balance are so very, very rare.
The problem is that it is not a social imperative but a biological one. It is an interesting fact that in Sweden, perhaps the most feminist country in the world, women chose to shun STEM and instead chose caring professions. The tiger can't change its stripes.
It's difficult to say. All I know is that things would be better for them if they chose dogs as life companions, instead of cats.
If their focus is on what they can get, instead of what they can give, they are not socialists of any stripe. Socialism isn't about money, it's about labour.
No comparison. Our gender instincts are very much the same in all cultures and races, and across the social mammalian spectrum. It supersedes even those great differences.
I don't think that's what he was saying. He was addressing the different drivers, once children are in the picture.
No the focus is on what others are getting and it being unfair to those who are exploited by those who have a lot. The principle is from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The government owns everything, gives people what they need, and there are no classes. That's the ideal, anyway. It's not what actually happens.
*coughcough* So you think people are happier, oh excuse me, women would be happier with a pet with dependency issues versus an independent pet?
I don't think she agrees with you (Crank) as to women's deepest desires. But then what would she know. She only IS one
People aren't tigers. People think. And what do 'caring' professions have to do with anything anyway? Is a nurse more likely to have free time to raise children than her physician husband?
Is it impossible for progressives to grasp that the concept of raising a family is a much more life fulfilling path then one of bachelor apartments, 1 night hook ups and a cat farm? Lol. No? Ok
So they fondest hope is that they won't have to earn their own keep? That's the polar opposite of socialism. Kinda backs the point about them being nothing like socialists.
