Most gender equal countries have the unhappiest women?

Kimsang

Bambi wrote: »

These stats for women started tho rise in the 70s, its not social media

Those stats you refer to also rose in the last few years.

Here's another metric from Haidt's work, non-fatal self-harm among young girls has sky-rocketed;
Young girls 10-14 has tripled.
This more definitively points to it being the fault of social media.

Haidt argues the 20-24 were immune, because they didn't grow up only knowing social media. They knew what life was like before. If he's right, you'll see a sharp spike in this category in the coming years.

spurious

Deleted User wrote: »

I kind of think there's going to be a reaction to the whole feminism craic in 20 years or so..

Like, you're seeing a generation of women hitting their mid forties or fifties now, independent, childless and realising they were sold a pup..

I think there will be a reaction to it in time..

I find this kind of comment interesting. What is it you think 'feminism' is?

What is it about wanting a world where people are treated in an equal fashion regardless of their gender that is so bad?

spurious

spurious wrote: »

I find this kind of comment interesting. What is it you think 'feminism' is?

What is it about wanting a world where people are treated in an equal fashion regardless of their gender that is so bad?

Of course, everyone should be treated in an equal fashion regardless of gender..
But Women and men are different..
A woman's strengths are different to a man's strengths.. some might say they're complimentary..
Like, really, I think feminism isn't really holding up the divine feminine as an archetype..
It's just some bastardisation of the feminine that's confused by a masculine concept of power..
I think in time women will recognize that the focus on career/living primarily for themselves while putting off having children is a mistake, that is only really realised once it's too late..
I think there might be a couple of generations of women that as they age might make this clear to those coming after them..

The J Stands for Jay

I wonder is it because the equality is usually to allow women to have more 'male' lifestyles. These lifestyles are capitalist, ratrace lives, so now women get to take part in the traditionally male misery. In going for equality, it would have been great to make changes to mens' and womens' loves to make both better.

The J Stands for Jay

mvl wrote: »

yeah, very independent-esque: an article about studies on young women & depression having a picture of a 50 year old ... that gets discussed here on boards with a gender equality flavor !!!

Reading the article in the OP is just spoiling our fun.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Not like an idiot but like someone who takes a report and twists it and misrepresents it to suit their agenda.

I'm not the one twisting it, the independent is. There are lots of studies confirming that women are less happy now than in earlier decades - here's one : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjv17mfhKDjAhX3ShUIHVGCAooQFjAHegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2XVBqzMWE6rXO1JFfIoGFz

Blacktie.

What about men? Are we as happy as previous decades?

Blacktie.

Blacktie. wrote: »

What about men? Are we as happy as previous decades?

Apparently not, male happiness has declined too, but less so than women.

My wife was told she could have it all - high flying career, kids, the works. She says now that you can, if you work 20 hours a day. Men aren't told ****, they have to work it out for themselves.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote:

Of course, everyone should be treated in an equal fashion regardless of gender.. But Women and men are different.. A woman's strengths are different to a man's strengths.. some might say they're complimentary.. Like, really, I think feminism isn't really holding up the divine feminine as an archetype.. It's just some bastardisation of the feminine that's confused by a masculine concept of power.. I think in time women will recognize that the focus on career/living primarily for themselves while putting off having children is a mistake, that is only really realised once it's too late.. I think there might be a couple of generations of women that as they age might make this clear to those coming after them..

What is the devine feminine?

Here’s the thing, the template of traditional femininity (or masculinity even) works for some people, but not for all, so forcing all women or men into a prescribed template of behaviour for their gender will suffocate some where others will thrive.
What is important is having *choice* that's all. Some women will use that to be mothers some will use it to focus on career and or a myriad of other options. It's not as simple as saying women were happier when they just did x. Some women just don't want children. Some women don't see themselves in some magical mother nurturer role, women are just people, the same way men are people and all want different things.
Some may regret choices in the future, as may some men, that's the nature of humanity.

El_Duderino 09

McGaggs wrote: »

Reading the article in the OP is just spoiling our fun.

Oh god don’t ask that. The regressivists will say we were happier back in the days of serfdom before all this feminism stuff started.

Silentcorner

Feminism is only one part of the outrage culture we have seen emerge into the mainstream over the last number of years.

It has been fed by (amongst others like academia) the lucrative Womens Council lobby who's existence and future depends on the existence gender issues or "equality" issues, which is why the parameters are constantly changing, and a media which is desperately trying to survive....women enjoy privileges in society that have not been afforded to men, health and education are the most obvious....this wave of feminism has been filled with misrepresentations, the pay gap, the domestic abuse industry, rape culture etc etc this was a huge mistake as there are very real consequences for ordinary people, it will either bring an end to the existence of the Womens Council or begin the existence of a Mens equivalent.

It has infiltrated Government policy and will continue to do so for some time yet, remember, politics and media are backstream from mainstream culture and lives....the extraordinary election of Donald Trump is the first visible sign, it won't stop there...you can already feel the pushback to this outrage culture that feminism is a large part of...I genuinely fear what will emerge in the right in politics in this country, we will pay for the failings of this Fine Gael government, the political system was well warned by Peter Caseys vote, the sytem it seems has ignored the warning from voters.

The next recession, which is coming very quickly, will prompt the pushback from firms who are being forced to engage with "gender equality"....it is been proven that gender equality in the private sector has a negative impact on profitability....firms that have embraced this gender/diversity promotion racket will suffer the consequnces of those decisions, there will be a very dysfunctional senior management culture when the profits start to decline....everyman for himself as it were!

I feel sorry for those who have tied part of their identity to this culture, I've been there before!

Lackadaisical

The single biggest stressor I'm seeing is a drastic rise in the cost of housing. None of our ancestors in the modern era faced these kinds of barriers to housing. You're really looking at having almost wound the clock back to Edwardian times in many respects.

The countries on that list are all wealthy and all facing a situation where a younger generation has, in some ways, worse prospects than their parents and that's largely down to unaffordable housing.

I think you're likely showing a correlation rather than a causation. The countries that are most gender equal are generally wealthier and have generally been impacted more dramatically with some of these issues where the ability to achieve basic life goals - a roof over your head have been quite dramatically reduced.

Then you've things like the miserable, dystopian right wing populist movements that just press all the fear and hate buttons. Even if they're not in your country you're listening to Trump, Brexiteers, Marine Le Pen and their followers ranting away 24/7 on social media. The sense that there's sensible leadership gone. The world looks like chaos.

I mean imagine if your entire adult life were a world of Trumpian politics? It would be hopeless and frightening. It's not like the 60s and 70s where you'd an optimistic youth movement rising against a conservative established. Rather, you've a pessimistic, reactionary and socially regressive group pushing back against a progressive establishment in many countries. Ireland's an exception to that, but it's a big issue in the US, UK, France, Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany etc and it's one I don't think many people have experienced in decades. It's very similar to what went on on the 1920s - a rise of the far right after a period of dramatic social and technological progress. It might not result in the same level or extremes this time. I don't think you're going to see any mainstream country turn into a fascist dictatorship but it's still rocking a lot of things to the core and not in a good way.

Then you've social media and, for younger people, that is huge. If grew up in the 90s or early 00s you aren't likely to see social media as more than a tool. Many of them see if as life and where social interaction happens and it is often absolutely vicious a it's viewed through the heightened emotions of teenagers who don't have much perspective a lot of that time. From what I can see that impacts young women disproportionately because there's already huge peer pressure about looks and so on, add selfies and constant peer review to that and you've a big problem.

Silentcorner

Whether you like Donald Trump or you don't it doesn't really matter.

What cannot be denied is how completely disenfranchised American voters must have been to elect a first time politician to the highest office in the land, calling them dumb or deplorables is not good enough...the American political establishment along with its media has persistently ignored the problems and issues on the ground in large parts of America, far away from the New Yorks or LAs...

We are headed straight down the same path, we were all warned...

Lackadaisical

We're not all headed down the same path as we don't have the same systems or underlying social divisions, but we still should be aware of brushing things like housing aside. The Irish system isn't able to be that unresponsive as it's a multiparty system with an extremely open form of PR and almost no barriers to entry to political system. It's not a big party system that can just plough on.

The issue in the states was a perfect storm of two blandly corporate parties that had become driven by marketing operations. Politics became professionalised sales. Then you've had a continuous movement of the centre to the economic right, which has massively undermined people's prospects and driven up income equality and undermined all sorts of stability issue that people took for granted. That's cranked up the fear dial.

Then along came candidates, figuring out that you could play people's fears. That started in the mainstream of politics and then became more extreme on the rise of things like the Tea Party, conspiracy theorists and then the alt right and now it's evolved into all sorts of organisations both domestic and international pushing those buttons.

It's a whole load of factors that underline a broken system that was not listening at all. The UK has had similar issues with New Labour having marketed itself to oblivion and the Tories ... Well they're just being Tories.

Meanwhile France is a complete mess for similar but not identical reasons. You've a traditional very powerful president (who until the early 2000s had a 7 year term). That's always fed a sense that the only way to be heard is 'dans la rue!' and protest loudly as otherwise, they won't listen.

Then you've got a couple of decades of economic stagnation and relatively low prospects and that's against a backdrop of tax rates that are the highest on the planet and massive social spending, often with deficit spending but the underlying issues are structural and they've never been addressed, just papered over and when anyone tries to tackle the structural problems they're accused of being far right.

It's made worse by the two round election system. Macron has about 30% support because that's all he ever had. They run multiple candidates in round 1. Then the too two (assuming nobody has reached 50%) run on round two a week later. So a lot of people voted for the least worst - Macron because they couldn't stomach the thoughts of Marine Le Pen, not because they actually support Macron. The result of that is endless friction and upset. France would probably work extremely well as proportional democracy but I don't think they'll ever change their system.

All of the above is also driving cynicism and burn out in the electorate and you're seeing poor turnouts and so on.

But anyway all I'm saying is we are in the middle of a world that *seems* like chaos and is being amplified by social media. Whether the bonkers political issues are happening here or not we are still being dragged along for the ride as observers.

Dyr

Lackadaisical wrote: »

The single biggest stressor I'm seeing is a drastic rise in the cost of housing.

This extends back far beyond the current situation with housing

Lackadaisical

Bambi wrote: »

This extends back far beyond the current situation with housing

Yeah it extends back to policy shifts that were driven in the 80s in the UK and 90s here, due to Thatcherite housing policies having being swallowed by the PDs, FF and FG. Housing became the get rich quick scheme for small time speculators in many countries, which is essentially how the 2008 global banking crash happened.

We need to regulate the housing market as a special class of asset. There's no advantage to just continuously ratcheting up prices that are ultimately driven by borrowing and that just means money flows out of the economy and into the financial markets instead of churning around in the real economy.

Basically we've created a pyramid scheme of paper wealth.

Without actually deflating house prices we aren't going to resolve this issue and anyone who is sitting on inflated assets, and that means anyone who owns a house and the banks who are exposed to negative equity implications and falling book values etc are going to resist that very heavily.

Until that happens, you've falling expectations, homelessness and two income households working to the pin of their collar. All that is driving up stress and driving down quality of life and I think it's going to take a second 2008 before we snap out of the speculation on housing assets.

Dyr

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Yeah it extends back to policy shifts that were driven in the 80s in the UK and 90s here.

Goes back further and isn't restricted to Ireland/UK

Lackadaisical

Bambi wrote: »

Goes back further and isn't restricted to Ireland/UK

The most dramatic shift in this market was in that era though and the most extreme speculation was through the 90s and 00s when it was driven by the derivatives markets and ultra low central bank rates.

I'd predict another market crash before we even begin to address it though.

The housing market has never been perfect here by any means but if you go back a few decades an average family could afford a home. One of the most attractive aspects of the US was an average income meant you could live very well and afford a very decent home. That hasn't been the case for most Americans in at least a generation.

We're also not taking automation and the disappearance of blue collar careers seriously enough and that's far more dramatic in countries that used to have big industrial economies but there's an issue here too with employment instability and so on.

suicide_circus

the pressure to "have it all" must be immense...

constantly fighting your own biology too.

Kimsang

Bambi wrote: »

These stats for women started tho rise in the 70s, its not social media

Bambi wrote: »

This extends back far beyond the current situation with housing

Bambi wrote: »

Goes back further and isn't restricted to Ireland/UK

Could you post some evidence for your claims?

BarryD2

suicide_circus wrote: »

the pressure to "have it all" must be immense....

Yep, the whole 'Having it All' message is completely unattainable for most people in life, whether women or men for that matter. You need to be independently wealthy for that to work and one way to get independently wealthy is to peddle that crap.

For most of us, life is about compromise and muddling along.

Roger Hassenforder

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, the whole 'Having it All' message is completely unattainable for most people in life, whether women or men for that matter. You need to be independently wealthy for that to work and one way to get independently wealthy is to peddle that crap.

For most of us, life is about compromise and muddling along.

Everyone needs to move to Blackrock

Gimme A Pound

It's apt that the word "poitin" is in the OP's username - he has all the subtlety of it. Research shows that teenage girls and young women are at their unhappiest in certain countries and there's no mention of women in general - of all ages, and no mention of anything to do with gender equality, but... the OP frames it as follows: women in most gender equal societies (oh noes, gender equality!) are unhappiest - faux question mark, and a bunch of others jump on board to rant about women in their 30s and 40s who are career focused and fussy. An all round success OP!

CageWager wrote: »

Its because while nobody wants to admit it, men are at their happiest when providing for their families and women are at their happiest when they are caring for their families. We can try impose (albeit noble) ideologies and engineer social frameworks but ultimately we can’t escape our own nature.

Plenty of people want to admit it (in fact some never shut up about it) - but... this item is about females aged 14 to 24.

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Women drank from the poison chalice that is feminism... One thing I agree with the red pillers on, its not men's problem to sort out, your mess, you clean it

Which women dude? Be specific.

Assetbacked wrote: »

The OP is not solely about that age group but is a general question. Therefore, not sure why you are side tracking?

Wha? You're the one who's sidetracking (along with others).

Deleted User wrote: »

I kind of think there's going to be a reaction to the whole feminism craic in 20 years or so..

Like, you're seeing a generation of women hitting their mid forties or fifties now, independent, childless and realising they were sold a pup..

I think there will be a reaction to it in time..

Because... there isn't a backlash to it already?

Few of ye like to pretend you live in a world where all women won't go near a man unless he's a millionaire model, where we are all horrible cold career women, none of whom want children or all put it off until it's too late, and we all hate men and all think feminism is brilliant... and then we all hit 40, single, childless and miserable, therefore... haha - that'll teach us.

Whereas that's not the actual reality at all most of the time. One might almost be inclined to think it's shyte talk to have a go at women.

Anyway, on the ACTUAL focus of the article, those are well off countries without serious problems (generally speaking). People who have no problems become unhappy about trivial stuff, and social media exacerbates it. That Jenner one is a "modern icon" or some sh1t. That's the kinda stuff that people with no problems become depressed by - feeling like they need to be like her to be happy.

Kimsang

Blacktie. wrote: »

What about men? Are we as happy as previous decades?

Men's jobs have declined massively in the last 10 years. Some sectors that men traditionally dominated(trades,construction,factory,lorry drivers,etc..) are on the decline.
Women's participation in the workforce has largely been unchanged though still less than that of men.
Men commit suicide 4-1 rate to women, in nearly every age category.

No one is trying to bring gender balance to jobs such as sewer cleaners, refuse collectors, engineer or mechanics.

And yet we live in a patriarchy; an age where Gillette is happy to label an entire gender as toxic.

Ireland & EU

Year Men Women Men Women
2006 77.7 59.1 71.5 57.2
2007 77.5 60.6 72.4 58.1
2008 75.4 60.4 72.6 58.9
2009 66.8 57.6 70.6 58.4
2010 63.9 56.0 70.1 58.2
2011 62.8 55.6 70.0 58.4
2012 62.4 55.2 69.6 58.6
2013 64.6 55.9 69.4 58.8
2014 66.3 56.4 70.1 59.5
2015 68.7 57.6 70.8 60.4
2016 69.9 59.5 71.8 61.4

Wibbs

Kimsang wrote: »

And yet we live in a patriarchy; an age where Gillette is happy to label an entire gender as toxic.

I would see it as more complex, or at least less obvious a distinction. I would contend that feminists are right in one respect and for a nice change, there is a "patriarchy" of sorts, but it's at the very top levels of society. At those levels where most of the actual power resides it's mostly a boys club, though there would be a few women within it. In everyday life, the life most people lead it's become very much more a matriarchy. Look at two ten year old Irish children today, girl and boy. Who is going to live a longer healthier life, far less likely to be physically assaulted and injured or killed, have more medical research aimed at them, have greater social supports, have fewer addiction issues, far fewer suicides, less unemployment, more options for career changes/family, much less chance of homelessness, have a better education and earn more in more comfortable less dangerous jobs because of it until kids come along? Hint: It's not the young boy. The only higher risk for the young girl is a much higher risk of sexual assault(in adulthood. The stats are closer in childhood).

And those in power are happy to have it so. They don't care what sort of archy is going on so long as it doesn't interrupt the money and means of making it. Currently a matriarchy of sorts is more advantageous. The largest wealth transfer in US history has been from men to women over the last forty years. That's a lot of buying power. Getting women into the workforce increased productivity and more increased the number of consumers. Essentially doubled it. If not more as in families it's more likely the woman who has the deciding vote on large and small purchases for the household.

This doesn't require some cabal of lizard men from mars to run, no conspiracy needed, it it just gets that way in society over time. Basically whichever works for the money, gets priority. Too often equal rights aimed at any group is as much about the equal right to climb on the consumer train.

No? Check this article from Forbes magazine.

Point 1 of 10: If the consumer economy had a sex, it would be female. Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.

Another article on the matter.

The salient points are:

Women are the economy of the US. 83% of everything sold in the non business to business setting is done or influenced by women.

89% of financial service decisions are made by women and control 40% of investable wealth and they inheriting another 30% of it when their husband dies and men typically die first.

Women influence 70% of car purchases in this country yet we don't have a place for a women's purse in cars.Note the cliche tacked on. Like I say the money gives two hoots about feminism or women, but if you can flog more new cars and give the customer more of their dopamine hit because it has a handbag pocket then...

Women are making 80% of the health care decisions.More a US thing because their health service is beyond daft.

70-80%. Think on that folks. And should we wonder why the "feminism" machine is constantly prodded by governments, financial institutions and the media? Why women as a group get more societal protection and all the rest?

You go Girl!!! And spend.

Cynical? Moi? Surely not...

Silentcorner

And don't forget how media are desperate for female attention because of that powerful spend...

That is one of the main reasons why the feminist agenda remains completely unchallenged in mainstream media...and why so many people are swallowing it whole!

Kimsang

Wibbs wrote: »

I would see it as more complex, or at least less obvious a distinction. I would contend that feminists are right in one respect and for a nice change, there is a "patriarchy" of sorts, but it's at the very top levels of society. At those levels where most of the actual power resides it's mostly a boys club, though there would be a few women within it.

You make some good points about the connection with corporations' interests, that they appeal to money spenders(women).

Why though is the conversation constantly about the top parts of society while ignoring the bottom parts?

As described in the bell curve of intelligence for men and women, men and women on average are of equal intelligence.


But if you pick out from the top 10% of intelligence, you will most likely pick a man; and if you pick from the bottom 10% you will most likely pick a man. Everyone seems to ignore this fact. Women are more closely clustered towards the mean. More variability is seen in men, this is supported by evolutionary biology.

Its why the top 9/10 chess players are consistently men, but also more patients in care for learning disabilities are men.

During the 2015 to 2016 school year, 17 percent of male students ages 6 to 21 received special services under IDEA, compared to 9 percent of female students benefiting from these services.

James Damore argued this very fact, and got fired from google.

Not only that, but there are many fine women that could do very well in politics, but a lot of them choose to be mothers. So women lose out on representation by choice there as well.

To argue that men are in politics therefore they broker power only for men, I regard as ridiculous. It would be like saying mostly women dominated healthcare, so they dispense medicine just to women.

Gimme A Pound

Why are people continuing to discuss something that's of no relevance to the article?

Wibbs

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Why are people continuing to discuss something that's of no relevance to the article?

Because normal conversations wander around a subject from a starting point?

Gimme A Pound

Wibbs wrote: »

Because normal conversations wander around a subject from a starting point?

The article is about teen girls and women under 25 - nothing in it is about feminism or marriage or having children or career. The OP sneakily pretended that's what it's about, and people of course are jumping on board to have a go at how women are now because of feminism... not having read a word of the article.