Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link.. Not going to quote it all at the moment--I'll do one of my hate-filled analyses later--but it turns out that Dutch women aren't that interested in a self-serving ideology that tells them how miserable and oppressed they are.

Sounds like the feminist movement simply succeeded in Holland. The mention of the "Working Dad" prize from Lof certainly suggests gender equality on a social level.

Though this may be one of the strangest things ever said: " is defined as the absence of problems." Um, no it's not?

If they actually have the social and economic freedom to move up, and there aren't forced expectations of society that would be a good thing and most feminists would agree, despite the sort of misleading thread title.

I suspect that it is not as nice and free and happy as the article makes it sound. Nor is correlation causation, of course.

I have nothing but praise for the Netherlands handling of gender and sexuality issues. This is a totally acceptable result, and imo feminists should be proud of how much progress has been made.

Ditto, King Kandy.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Though this may be one of the strangest things ever said: " is defined as the absence of problems." Um, no it's not?

I thought about it a lot and tried to contradict it...but I just can't.

For instance, pretend you become happy threw dealing with (and/or overcoming) problems. So if you have a large set of problems to deal with, you are happy. However...the presence of problems is not considered a problem to the person that likes to deal with them: they are components of their happiness and, therefore, cannot be defined as "problems".

I thought of about half a dozen of these very examples and I cannot get out of this loop. How did you solve the "problem" of happiness has problems?


By the way, I take the "happiness" to mean "pure happiness", not watered or polluted happiness.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought about it a lot and tried to contradict it...but I just can't.

For instance, pretend you become happy threw dealing with (and/or overcoming) problems. So if you have a large set of problems to deal with, you are happy. However...the presence of problems is not considered a problem to the person that likes to deal with them: they are components of their happiness and, therefore, cannot be defined as "problems".

I thought of about half a dozen of these very examples and I cannot get out of this loop. How did you solve the "problem" of happiness has problems?

You've caught yourself in an equivocation paradox, the meaning of the word "problem" keeps changing, which is exactly what makes it such an odd thing to say.

The problems that make you happy are obstacles to overcome, without them you get bored and thus unhappy. P_h
The problems that make you unhappy are anything that makes you unhappy. P_u

The person seems to be concluding that because they don't have much P_u then they don't have much P_h, which doesn't make sense.

Hate filled analysis? You've been really dominating the GD forum with those lately Zeal. So Dutch women have a different mentality than American women. What's your point? In those social democratic paradises up there, women can generally do whatever they chose to including staying at home, selling their bodies, or sometimes even having sex in public places. I'm a little disappointed that you haven't worked in your desire to see dead Jews in your fireplace into this thread yet. Losing your touch?

The great irony is, Dutch women would be against almost any issue Zeal espouses. So trying to argue on the authority of the Dutch may not figure well with his arguments.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The great irony is, Dutch women would be against almost any issue Zeal espouses.
I would think any reasonable person would.

Nothing new about this Feminists are always doing something all the time.

Basically, this news article proves what anyone with half a brain already knows: women aren't that interested in feminism. Certainly, there are some vocal feminists among the female population, but these are the minority, and they are usually those marginalized by society: shrill, unpleasant busybodies with a lecture ever at the ready, warding off imagined patriarchs and would-be rapists. The majority of women, however, simply lack the drive to become full-time providers. They would much rather spend time as caretakers and homemakers, which is what their biology dictates. (It is not, as feminists loudly proclaim, social conditioning.)

Ultimately, the only way that feminism achieves power is through repetition and social conditioning. By telling women that they are oppressed, women come to believe they are oppressed. By silencing any dissenters--calling them sexists or misogynists, or by invalidating their opinions because they have "male privilege"--feminists create an echo chamber where reality has no hold and their ideas can flourish in peace. Much, I suppose, like the old USSR.

What is particularly striking about this piece is that feminists are not content with their achievements. Nor will they ever be, much like anyone else subscribing to identity politics. Dutch women have freedom unprecedented in the civilized world--the freedom from want that their socialist system provides, the freedom from sexual mores that feminism provides, the freedom from traditionalism that progressivism provides--and what do they choose? They choose to be feminine. They reject the long hours of the corporate workforce and instead bear and raise children, just as God and nature intend.

To the feminists, however, this is unacceptable. When a male student asks what's wrong with a wife staying at home, Heleen Mees expresses shock. "What's going on here?" she asks. To her, the very idea of a woman staying at home is appalling. As the article notes, she believes that women have a moral obligation to be feminist activists and become a part of the corporate machine. This tacitly admits the grand lie of feminism: it's not about freedom, it's about an agenda.

When women reject feminism, they are happier. And why wouldn't they be? An ideology that tells them they are powerless, that they are enslaved, that they should be outraged, that they should pursue unfulfilling careers--how could this possibly lead to happiness?

What is most striking about the article, however, is that there is the admission of why the wage gap persists: women work part time and take time off for their children. It is plain as day, and yet feminists like Mees will continue to rail against it because their entire ideology is founded upon ignoring reality in favor of whining and sloganeering.

Most women would be happier in the 1950s than in 2010s. Their desire is for their husbands, who rule over them.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, this news article proves what anyone with half a brain already knows: women aren't that interested in feminism. Certainly, there are some vocal feminists among the female population, but these are the minority, and they are usually those marginalized by society: shrill, unpleasant busybodies with a lecture ever at the ready, warding off imagined patriarchs and would-be rapists. The majority of women, however, simply lack the drive to become full-time providers. They would much rather spend time as caretakers and homemakers, which is what their biology dictates. (It is not, as feminists loudly proclaim, social conditioning.)

Ultimately, the only way that feminism achieves power is through repetition and social conditioning. By telling women that they are oppressed, women come to believe they are oppressed. By silencing any dissenters--calling them sexists or misogynists, or by invalidating their opinions because they have "male privilege"--feminists create an echo chamber where reality has no hold and their ideas can flourish in peace. Much, I suppose, like the old USSR.

What is particularly striking about this piece is that feminists are not content with their achievements. Nor will they ever be, much like anyone else subscribing to identity politics. Dutch women have freedom unprecedented in the civilized world--the freedom from want that their socialist system provides, the freedom from sexual mores that feminism provides, the freedom from traditionalism that progressivism provides--and what do they choose? They choose to be feminine. They reject the long hours of the corporate workforce and instead bear and raise children, just as God and nature intend.

To the feminists, however, this is unacceptable. When a male student asks what's wrong with a wife staying at home, Heleen Mees expresses shock. "What's going on here?" she asks. To her, the very idea of a woman staying at home is appalling. As the article notes, she believes that women have a moral obligation to be feminist activists and become a part of the corporate machine. This tacitly admits the grand lie of feminism: it's not about freedom, it's about an agenda.

When women reject feminism, they are happier. And why wouldn't they be? An ideology that tells them they are powerless, that they are enslaved, that they should be outraged, that they should pursue unfulfilling careers--how could this possibly lead to happiness?

What is most striking about the article, however, is that there is the admission of why the wage gap persists: women work part time and take time off for their children. It is plain as day, and yet feminists like Mees will continue to rail against it because their entire ideology is founded upon ignoring reality in favor of whining and sloganeering.

Most women would be happier in the 1950s than in 2010s. Their desire is for their husbands, who rule over them.
What this article and your interpretation shows is that people who have no clue what they're talking about and have a backward worldview will see what they want in what they read regardless of whether it reflects the reality of the situation.

The feminist described in the article does sound like an extremist who will never be satisfied, but to point at her and claim that she represents all feminists is a textbook example of strawmanning.

Also I don't understand your critique: feminists tell women that they're enslaved and this knowledge makes them unhappy.

...yet women want to be enslaved by men to be happy?

It's like if you derived pleasure from making people laugh but became despondent when someone said you were a funny person.

Oh well, I don't really expect a cogent answer out of you since at this point I'm more or less certain that you're just a troll and probably don't even take what you say seriously.

This is why arguing with progressives is useless. They cannot see beyond their own blinding prejudices, so they equate non-feminism with slavery and misogyny. Indeed, I should think that up until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, women were enslaved by misogynists, forced to stay at home and have children under a woeful patriarchy. They were so horribly unhappy with this situation that they liberated themselves...and then decided to go right back on staying at home and having children.

Reality does not correspond with liberalism.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, this news article proves what anyone with half a brain already knows: women aren't that interested in feminism. Certainly, there are some vocal feminists among the female population, but these are the minority, and they are usually those marginalized by society: shrill, unpleasant busybodies with a lecture ever at the ready, warding off imagined patriarchs and would-be rapists. The majority of women, however, simply lack the drive to become full-time providers. They would much rather spend time as caretakers and homemakers, which is what their biology dictates. (It is not, as feminists loudly proclaim, social conditioning.)

My general observation (all anecdotal) of the women in my life agrees. Most women do not want pure and unadulterated equality between the genders. Female humans have just redefined "big strong successful hunter" as we have socially progressed. Our genes have not progressed enough to warrant a complete change. All the women I intimately know want, "a man to take care of me." I have a hard time differentiating that from the primal desires to find a successful hunter.

Don't get me wrong: I am a luke-warm feminist. I am appalled by the still lingering inequality between the genders in the work place. I am appalled by the GF and wife-battering that still occurs in disturbing numbers in our supposed "civilization". I desire equality in the work-place and social change in some of our attitudes towards females. I don't just talk to the talk: I enforce these on my employees (I do not tolerate sexist comments made to my female employees...even when joking) and ensure they are equally compensated according to their performance and credentials. Mostly because I am required to by Articles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act and judicial precedents made in federal courts; but, partially because I wish to make work "equal" for the genders.

Freedom to choose: good. All hail, real and courageous women.
Dogmatic agenda: bad. Take that, angry pseudofeminists

Originally posted by dadudemon
My general observation (all anecdotal) of the women in my life agrees. Most women do not want pure and unadulterated equality between the genders. Female humans have just redefined "big strong successful hunter" as we have socially progressed. Our genes have not progressed enough to warrant a complete change. All the women I intimately know want, "a man to take care of me." I have a hard time differentiating that from the primal desires to find a successful hunter.

Don't get me wrong: I am a luke-warm feminist. I am appalled by the still lingering inequality between the genders in the work place. I am appalled by the GF and wife-battering that still occurs in disturbing numbers in our supposed "civilization". I desire equality in the work-place and social change in some of our attitudes towards females. I don't just talk to the talk: I enforce these on my employees (I do not tolerate sexist comments made to my female employees...even when joking) and ensure they are equally compensated according to their performance and credentials. Mostly because I am required to by Articles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act and judicial precedents made in federal courts; but, partially because I wish to make work "equal" for the genders.



How many of those women were mormons?

Seems like the rest of the world could learn a few things from the Dutch; the freedom to choose independence and freedom, rather than being forced into a lifestyle chosen for you that you really don't want but are being expected to conform to. (And they say the USA is the land of freedom)

What's missing in all this is that there are no chauvanists and misgyonists ( except in the minds of feminists, paranoia perhaps) saying that they can't do things because they are female.

Most people I meet say if you have an ambition go for it.

Originally posted by JodiJeff
Seems like the rest of the world could learn a few things from the Dutch; the freedom to choose independence and freedom, rather than being forced into a lifestyle chosen for you that you really don't want but are being expected to conform to. (And they say the USA is the land of freedom)

What's missing in all this is that there are no chauvanists and misgyonists ( except in the minds of feminists, paranoia perhaps) saying that they can't do things because they are female.

Most people I meet say if you have an ambition go for it.
Right. Obviously there's a big logical leap between "most women want a domestic life" and "therefore, it is OK to force the ones who don't to go along with them", even if we accept the former premise as true.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is why arguing with progressives is useless. They cannot see beyond their own blinding prejudices, so they equate non-feminism with slavery and misogyny. Indeed, I should think that up until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, women were enslaved by misogynists, forced to stay at home and have children under a woeful patriarchy. They were so horribly unhappy with this situation that they liberated themselves...and then decided to go right back on staying at home and having children.

Reality does not correspond with liberalism.
Sooo disingenuous. do you think any of these Dutch women are in favor of returning to the 1800s when even women who wanted intellectual jobs were denied to them? Do you really not see the difference between "choosing to live at home" and "being forced to stay at home"?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is why arguing with progressives is useless. They cannot see beyond their own blinding prejudices, so they equate non-feminism with slavery and misogyny. Indeed, I should think that up until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, women were enslaved by misogynists, forced to stay at home and have children under a woeful patriarchy. They were so horribly unhappy with this situation that they liberated themselves...and then decided to go right back on staying at home and having children.

Reality does not correspond with liberalism.
The mistake is thinking there's a dilemma between having kids and being liberated. A woman can be empowered and liberated but choose to have children, be a stay at home mom, and cook for her husband every night.

Domesticity isn't in of itself oppression or misogyny, it becomes misogynistic and oppressive however when society is structured to the effect that domesticity becomes an expectation or even a rule rather than a possible life path to be elected or eschewed by individual women.

One big example of something like this is Muslim women's clothing. I am wholly opposed to women being forced to bundle up like Mummies by their society and culture's laws or in private realms by their family members. That being said if a woman has considered it and decided for whatever reason (and admittedly it's often times next to impossible to know if it really is a considered personal choice or them submitting to outside pressure) that she wants to wear a Burqa I think it's silly to say that the clothing is oppressing her or that she needs help.

The idea that women have to be corporate-ladder-climbing spinsters-in-training wearing pantsuits to be "empowered" is something that's every bit as harmful as the idea that women have to be obedient caretakers of the home and quiet pieces of arm candy to be "happy" or "proper".

Originally posted by King Kandy
How many of those women were mormons?

1: My wife.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Basically, this news article proves what anyone with half a brain already knows: women aren't that interested in feminism. Certainly, there are some vocal feminists among the female population, but these are the minority, and they are usually those marginalized by society: shrill, unpleasant busybodies with a lecture ever at the ready, warding off imagined patriarchs and would-be rapists. The majority of women, however, simply lack the drive to become full-time providers. They would much rather spend time as caretakers and homemakers, which is what their biology dictates. (It is not, as feminists loudly proclaim, social conditioning.)

Ultimately, the only way that feminism achieves power is through repetition and social conditioning. By telling women that they are oppressed, women come to believe they are oppressed. By silencing any dissenters--calling them sexists or misogynists, or by invalidating their opinions because they have "male privilege"--feminists create an echo chamber where reality has no hold and their ideas can flourish in peace. Much, I suppose, like the old USSR.

What is particularly striking about this piece is that feminists are not content with their achievements. Nor will they ever be, much like anyone else subscribing to identity politics. Dutch women have freedom unprecedented in the civilized world--the freedom from want that their socialist system provides, the freedom from sexual mores that feminism provides, the freedom from traditionalism that progressivism provides--and what do they choose? They choose to be feminine. They reject the long hours of the corporate workforce and instead bear and raise children, just as God and nature intend.

To the feminists, however, this is unacceptable. When a male student asks what's wrong with a wife staying at home, Heleen Mees expresses shock. "What's going on here?" she asks. To her, the very idea of a woman staying at home is appalling. As the article notes, she believes that women have a moral obligation to be feminist activists and become a part of the corporate machine. This tacitly admits the grand lie of feminism: it's not about freedom, it's about an agenda.

When women reject feminism, they are happier. And why wouldn't they be? An ideology that tells them they are powerless, that they are enslaved, that they should be outraged, that they should pursue unfulfilling careers--how could this possibly lead to happiness?

What is most striking about the article, however, is that there is the admission of why the wage gap persists: women work part time and take time off for their children. It is plain as day, and yet feminists like Mees will continue to rail against it because their entire ideology is founded upon ignoring reality in favor of whining and sloganeering.

Most women would be happier in the 1950s than in 2010s. Their desire is for their husbands, who rule over them.

One of the five best posts I've read in my time here.

bitter truth.

If you keep posting 8 more times, you will hit the 10 required so that you can start posting hyperlinks to the stuff you're trying to sell, Arash. Hurry up to your 10 posts. QUICK!

Correction: 6 more posts.