More women should freeze their eggs and focus on their careers.

[Jinpachi]

Women can have it ALL but only if they are smart enough to freeze their eggs as an insurance policy. I will grant you it is an expensive endeavour but most 20 something women can either save the money up or borrow it from their families. The way I see it cryopreservation of their dwindling egg supply is like making an investment. It is not secret that a woman's fertility declines beyond the young age of 26 so why shouldn't women think more long term and save up the best eggs while they still can.

While freezing eggs is a no guarantee of producing a healthy baby. Only 10% viable.

Frozen embryos have a much high success rate.

Yes, you want to have a child with your soul mate- but for all you know they may have problems with their sperm. You may also not meet this person until later in life.

Creating and freezing embryos made with quality donor sperm if you are under 30 is an insurance policy. 60%+ viability with this method.

More people should stop telling other people what the fuck they should be doing with their lives. Notice the irony. Twice.

- - - Updated - - -

Men don't want women who behave like men. Women aren't supposed to be everything that men are, they are supposed to be everything that men AREN'T.

[Lord Havik]

More people, not just women, should put off having kids and focus on creating a financially stable situation in which to eventually have children.

This means more fun with your partner, more money for the two of you, and no custody battles in the case things don't work out.

[Halyon]

Men don't want women who behave like men. Women aren't supposed to be everything that men are, they are supposed to be everything that men AREN'T.

Or people could just be people and do what, and who, they want?

[SupBrah]

Yes indeed wealth is not something we make up its indeed our "nature" to seek it most of what you are speak of has mattered for such a small amount of time that the human race has existed. Gone tell you what if you had said it is what has mattered the most socially the last few thousand years sure. Even then if you think women could do nothing but afk at home like they can now you are sadly mistaken unless you plan on only going by what royalty and nobles had. But if you think its in our "instinct" well let me put it this way people like you make me glad you dont have more power than the ability to post on forums like these.

I'm honestly not sure wtf you're trying to say, but I never said women used to sit on their ass while the husband worked.

But most of them we're slaving away for wages either. They were the matriarchs of the household. They made sure the family was cared for. They made sure the children were fed, clothed, and safe. She made sure her husband knew he had someone to turn to when it felt like the world was against him. She and their children gave him a reason to get up every morning and go work that dead end job.

The problem with liberals nowadays is they demonize this type of woman as some slave.... Simply because she didn't decide to become some unhappy wage slave. Liberals think this type of woman doesn't accomplish anything in life. That's bullocks.

I look at some lonely, middle-aged female lawyer and I think "yeah, that's impressive I guess." Then I look at some woman with a couple of children. I can't help but notice these kids are clothed, educated, and healthy.

Then I realize that mother is more impressive than the female lawyer can ever be. She's done something I will NEVER be able to do. She has given the gift of life and helped assure that humanity lives on. While me or that lawyer slave away with nothing more than currency to show for it, that woman has personally influenced the future of the world by preparing the next generation to take the reins.

[Halyon]

snip

So you assume that the mother is automatically happy and the single female lawyer is not because she hasn't popped out some kids? All because you think it's more impressive? Ok. Why should anyone else care what you think when they decide what to use their lives on?

People who want kids, will have kids, people who don't, won't, they'll do what they want with their lives. How about the teachers who actually teach those kids shit they'll need to get jobs and function in society? Lots of them are single people. Or the police officers keeping criminals off the street (mostly), the doctors keeping us healthy, all the workers keeping shit working, and lawyers putting creeps behind bars...those are both single people, and family people, and they all contribute to society in meaningful ways that aren't just padding the population.

[Hiricine]

Egg freezing isn't a bad solution but it leads to a crazy society where parents are retiring while or even before their kids enter the workforce, the better solution would be to address problems that cause intelligent, career oriented women from having kids. Need a culture where men can step up as home caregivers to allow their wives to work as single providers if we accept the notion that women have a significant place in the workforce.

[Thessik-Irontail]

Women can have it ALL but only if they are smart enough to freeze their eggs as an insurance policy. I will grant you it is an expensive endeavour but most 20 something women can either save the money up or borrow it from their families. The way I see it cryopreservation of their dwindling egg supply is like making an investment. It is not secret that a woman's fertility declines beyond the young age of 26 so why shouldn't women think more long term and save up the best eggs while they still can.

While freezing eggs is a no guarantee of producing a healthy baby. Only 10% viable.

Frozen embryos have a much high success rate.

Yes, you want to have a child with your soul mate- but for all you know they may have problems with their sperm. You may also not meet this person until later in life.

Creating and freezing embryos made with quality donor sperm if you are under 30 is an insurance policy. 60%+ viability with this method.

The feminist promise of "women having careers will result in greater happiness" has factually been proven wrong. Women's level of happiness has been in steady decline for some time since the pressure to have a career was ushered in from feminist groups. While stay at home mothers have remained quite happy.

[noidentity]

Good ole Shinra, yet again telling women how to live their lives.

[Halyon]

The feminist promise of "women having careers will result in greater happiness" has factually been proven wrong. Women's level of happiness has been in steady decline for some time since the pressure to have a career was ushered in from feminist groups. While stay at home mothers have remained quite happy.

http://worldhappiness.report/

I apparently live in the happiest country in the world. Yai? Anyhow, looooooads of reading material here, just linking it. And whaddaya know, it took 2 seconds to google.

Previously shown graphs haven't said why women's overall happiness declined. One thing I'd like to say, is; when you don't have a choice, you make the best of what you can get, otherwise, having the freedom to choose, comes with more problematics, that's true, but a guilded cage is nonetheless a cage. Which age group was the unhappiest and why? Etc...

[Deleted]

Where is the source, where are the last 10 years, and why are both plots linear? This doesn't look trustworthy.

Now, this I call source (also lacking the last 10 years though):
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf

It's so weird how you cherry pick that graph, which is a subset of data, from a NBER report for which the abstract reads:

"By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past
35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has
declined both absolutely and relative to men.

The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being
is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic
groups and industrialized countries."

This is the sort of desperate, deluded cherry-picking "gotchas" that creationists and other non-scientific ideologues resort to, and frankly it's embarrassing for you

The truth is very simple:

Feminism was wrong, trying to become like men has made women unhappy

However, relatively speaking, it has made men happier, so yay I guess

[Deleted]

However, relatively speaking, it has made men happier, so yay I guess

Which isn't really surprising even if you ignore biology and just look at what being a man means: hard work and constant need to prove yourself.

[May90]

It's so weird how you cherry pick that graph, which is a subset of data, from a NBER report for which the abstract reads:

"By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past
35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has
declined both absolutely and relative to men.

The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being
is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic
groups and industrialized countries."

This is the sort of desperate, deluded cherry-picking "gotchas" that creationists and other non-scientific ideologues resort to, and frankly it's embarrassing for you

The truth is very simple:

Feminism was wrong, trying to become like men has made women unhappy

However, relatively speaking, it has made men happier, so yay I guess

WTF is your comment about? If we look at the graph, then yes, we can see that happiness among women has declined since 70-s, while for men it remained pretty much the same. I've never said otherwise, you have some reading comprehension problem?

And no, somehow explaining it by feminism IS desperate.

Really, Xarim, you are resembling a religious fanatic at this point. Mumbling the same nonsense in every thread, without even bothering to try to understand what other people are saying.

[Deleted]

And no, somehow explaining it by feminism IS desperate.

Not really, it's the rather obvious factor at the core of all this data:

1970s -> now = more feminism, more freedom and individualism, less families, more divorces, more career women, less children => women are less happy

The reason this rather obvious and simple chain is controversial is because feminism says "it shouldn't be so" - the same way religions say "evolution shouldn't be so"

But just like evolution, that's just the way it is

[May90]

Not really, it's the rather obvious factor at the core of all this data:

1970s -> now = more feminism, more freedom and individualism, less families, more divorces, more career women, less children => women are less happy

The reason this rather obvious and simple chain is controversial is because feminism says "it shouldn't be so" - the same way religions say "evolution shouldn't be so" - but regardless of how we feel about them, some things just are

No, it is just a stupid explanation, a very naive one and not backed by any data. You believe in this, because you want it to be like this, so your "evil feminazis and SJWs" narrative makes more sense than none.

[Deleted]

No, it is just a stupid explanation, a very naive one and not backed by any data. You believe in this, because you want it to be like this, so your "evil feminazis and SJWs" narrative makes more sense than none.

Occam's razor it - what other factors are at play in that time frame

[Halyon]

Occam's razor it - what other factors are at play in that time frame

Well, I mentioned something last page, which you dilligently ignored.

Who says it's always stay-at-home moms who're happier than career women, when shit like economy has a big role to play nowadays, were being a single provider is much harder than before? There are lots of factors at play, and blaming it on feminism is absolutely ludicrous when you have 0 evidence supporting it as the source of said unhappiness. Have you considered that marriages just aren't always happy, with partner issues, job issues, mental health, etc. Some parents regret becoming parents. How's that?

You just sound like a broken record trying to pigeonhole this one point.

[Adam Jensen]

whats wrong with getting married and have children?
oh thats right, the regressive left demands that we destroy the family unit

carry on

Sigh. The left doesn't want to destroy the family unit. They want people to understand that a male/female couple isn't the only viable option.

[Deleted]

Well, I mentioned something last page, which you dilligently ignored.

Who says it's always stay-at-home moms who're happier than career women, when shit like economy has a big role to play nowadays, were being a single provider is much harder than before? There are lots of factors at play, and blaming it on feminism is absolutely ludicrous when you have 0 evidence supporting it as the source of said unhappiness. Have you considered that marriages just aren't always happy, with partner issues, job issues, mental health, etc. Some parents regret becoming parents. How's that?

You just sound like a broken record trying to pigeonhole this one point.

Again, you're just scatter-gunning (irrelevant) excuses to avoid the simplest and most scientific explanation; that is what ideologues like creationists (or geocentrists) do, in that manner scientists find so bewildering and inexplicable

Marriages aren't always happy? That hasn't changed since the 1970s

Job issues, mental issues, parents who regret becoming parents? Hasn't changed since the 1970s

Your "counter-examples" are completely irrelevant

What changed since the 1970s? Feminism

It's logical too: feminism runs against biology and forces women to behave like men - it's no wonder it makes women unhappy

You're basically saying there must be a different reason why things fall to the ground, because gravity isn't real -- even though it's obviously the simplest and most easily observable explanation we have -- because "gravity shouldn't be real" according to your beliefs

[Halyon]

Again, you're just scatter-gunning (irrelevant) excuses to avoid the simplest and most scientific explanation; that is what ideologues like creationists (or geocentrists) do, in that manner scientists find so bewildering and inexplicable

Marriages aren't always happy? That hasn't changed since the 1970s. Job issues, mental issues, parents who regret becoming parents? Hasn't changed since the 1970s

Your "counter-examples" are completely irrelevant

You're basically saying there must be a different reason why things fall to the ground, because gravity isn't real -- even though it's obviously the simplest and most easily observable explanation we have -- because "gravity shouldn't be real" according to your beliefs

Prove it then, if it's so scientific. The burden of proof is on you for claiming it, friendo.

And no, I'm not, I'm just not beating one horse to death because I have a huge stick up my arse over feminism and a spoiled ideal.

[Deleted]

Prove it then, if it's so scientific. The burden of proof is on you for claiming it, friendo.

And no, I'm not, I'm just not beating one horse to death because I have a huge stick up my arse over feminism and a spoiled ideal.

I mean you can be insulting and hysterical if you want, I get that science offends your irrational beliefs, but that is the logical (and rather obvious) explanation for the observed phenomenon