Feminists and nonconformists - where do your goals come from?
Options
Replies
-
I clicked on this thread fully expecting it to be a dumpster fire. Pleasantly surprised. Great discussion.0
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
ETA ooooh caught it before the rewrite. It IS an interesting discussion:)0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.0 -
emmycantbemeeko wrote: »Are my goals and desires and personal aesthetic influenced by the larger culture, which is pretty sexist and patriarchal in a lot of ways? Heck yeah. I'm not a magician who can eliminate the impact of decades of media and social imagery and pressure on my own mind.
Does that make me a bad feminist? No. Feminism is about recognizing those places where we're still falling short as a society in providing equal opportunity and treatment for everyone, where there's room for improvement, and where we are placing unreasonable demands and pressures on others and ourselves. It's not about becoming flawless living embodiments of the version of ourselves who already lives in a perfectly egalitarian world (if we could even accurately conceive of and execute what that might look like for each of us).
It's pretty silly to blame the targets of various kinds of oppression for behaviors motivated by that oppression, even if that seems like the easiest way to tackle it. "Hey, stop acting so oppressed!" to an individual is a much easier, but lazier and less useful thing to say then "Hey, stop oppressing people" to a larger system that's actually doing it.
Looked at objectively, it's pretty silly that men can wear their body hair unaltered and women are considered shocking outliers if not outright disgusting in many settings if they don't remove it. That makes no objective sense. But it doesn't follow that a woman who bows to that pressure and shaves or waxes- whether because she feels external pressure from the social setting she moves in to do so or because she's totally internalized the idea that it IS gross to have body hair- is a "bad feminist."
If she goes around telling *other* women that they're disgusting for having body hair, that's some bad feminism. And it's probably worthwhile to each of us to confront and interrogate the gender-based expectations placed on us, even if we ultimately choose to comply with them. But making choices or having thoughts or feelings that conform to patriarchal ideals is not an inherently antifeminist thing, and blaming the targets of social control for being socially influenced is kind of a jerk move.
I was typing out a long response to the OP, then happened to scroll up and read this and it pretty much sums up how I feel wayyy more eloquently so now I'm just gonna quote your post instead :P0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.
So I'll take that as a begrudging yes, it has an inflationary effect. That was the only point I was making. Feel free to accuse me of being a Fox News watcher or whatnot now.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.
So I'll take that as a begrudging yes, it has an inflationary effect. That was the only point I was making. Feel free to accuse me of being a Fox News watcher or whatnot now.
I think it's pretty clear that it was a "no, it isn't the cause of inflation". I'm not sure how many ways I can rephrase "women entering the workforce en masse in the late 1900's was a result of wage stagnation/inflation in cost of living, and not the cause of it". But I guess you feel free to "take that" however you want.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.
So I'll take that as a begrudging yes, it has an inflationary effect. That was the only point I was making. Feel free to accuse me of being a Fox News watcher or whatnot now.
I think it's pretty clear that it was a "no, it isn't the cause of inflation". I'm not sure how many ways I can rephrase "women entering the workforce en masse in the late 1900's was a result of wage stagnation/inflation in cost of living, and not the cause of it". But I guess you feel free to "take that" however you want.
I'll stick with my initial statement and retire to bed for the night. Nights. Enjoy your rage.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.
So I'll take that as a begrudging yes, it has an inflationary effect. That was the only point I was making. Feel free to accuse me of being a Fox News watcher or whatnot now.
I think it's pretty clear that it was a "no, it isn't the cause of inflation". I'm not sure how many ways I can rephrase "women entering the workforce en masse in the late 1900's was a result of wage stagnation/inflation in cost of living, and not the cause of it". But I guess you feel free to "take that" however you want.
I'll stick with my initial statement and retire to bed for the night. Nights. Enjoy your rage.
No rage here. You asked a question about economics, and I responded to that question with the information and data that made me disagree with your interpretation of history.
When women argue with you, it's because we disagree with you. It's not a result of some uncontrollable emotion.0 -
I will add though that I do believe in body positivity, which means that regardless of health risks I believe that nobody should be treated with disrespect or made to feel less worthy because of their size. I have several gorgeous, plus-sized lady friends who are happy, healthy, and absolute BABES, and it seems crazy to me that anyone would think these women were unattractive because of their weight. If a friend came to me wanting advice about making a healthy change I would happily give it, but I really feel people have the right to make (informed) choices about their bodies and health.0
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.
So I'll take that as a begrudging yes, it has an inflationary effect. That was the only point I was making. Feel free to accuse me of being a Fox News watcher or whatnot now.
I think it's pretty clear that it was a "no, it isn't the cause of inflation". I'm not sure how many ways I can rephrase "women entering the workforce en masse in the late 1900's was a result of wage stagnation/inflation in cost of living, and not the cause of it". But I guess you feel free to "take that" however you want.
I'll stick with my initial statement and retire to bed for the night. Nights. Enjoy your rage.
No rage here. You asked a question about economics, and I responded to that question with the information and data that made me disagree with your interpretation of history.
When women argue with you, it's because we disagree with you. It's not a result of some uncontrollable emotion.
So now my reaction to you is because you're a woman? And I watch Fox News . . . Got it. You're a sharp one
ETA: I could go on here about the statements with assumptions. I actually offered no interpretation of history. I doubt you speak for all women. And I never offered an opinion about women in general being driven by uncontrollable emotions. You did, however, run off there with my statement about the effects of a large number of people entering the workforce. Whatever battle you're fighting, good luck with it.0 -
lemonlionheart wrote: »I will add though that I do believe in body positivity, which means that regardless of health risks I believe that nobody should be treated with disrespect or made to feel less worthy because of their size. I have several gorgeous, plus-sized lady friends who are happy, healthy, and absolute BABES, and it seems crazy to me that anyone would think these women were unattractive because of their weight. If a friend came to me wanting advice about making a healthy change I would happily give it, but I really feel people have the right to make (informed) choices about their bodies and health.
I've often wished that the h in haes stood for happy. Everyone deserves to be happy, to feel happy, with their bodies. Not every body (or weight) is healthy, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be happy.0 -
lemonlionheart wrote: »I will add though that I do believe in body positivity, which means that regardless of health risks I believe that nobody should be treated with disrespect or made to feel less worthy because of their size. I have several gorgeous, plus-sized lady friends who are happy, healthy, and absolute BABES, and it seems crazy to me that anyone would think these women were unattractive because of their weight. If a friend came to me wanting advice about making a healthy change I would happily give it, but I really feel people have the right to make (informed) choices about their bodies and health.
This. And while I disagree with the idea of HAES, being that it's not medically accurate, I also understand why the movement exists. It would be easy to laugh at the HAES movement and call anyone who believes it stupid, but I defer to Dr. King here "riots are the language of the unheard". HAES exists, incorrect though it is, because people who do not meet societal standards of beauty are treated poorly. HAES exists because people were shamed and treated with cruelty for being fat, rather than supported and enabled to lose the weight and get healthy.
As someone who has been treated with cruelty for being overweight, I get it. I would feel better hiding under the lie of HAES than just accepting mistreatment too. It doesn't make it right, but the answer isn't to say "you're stupid for believing HAES", the answer is to be absolutely intolerant of body-shaming so people don't shell-up and sink into the protective arms of a comfortable lie.
And it's tempting to go with the visceral reaction of "but there's overwhelming evidence that HAES isn't true, why shouldn't I shout that from the rooftops", I get that desire too. But people's children have literally killed themselves because of the cruelty they've experienced as a result of being overweight. I just think that the way to fix the problem is to let the truth be a safer happier place so the lie can finally die from lack of popular support. Like @lemonlionheart said, that means being available as a resource without being so available you're shoving it down people's throats.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »an interesting discussion but . . .
No, I think more it shows an ability to read things that don't have "Fox News" written at the top.
Interesting. Straight to an assumption and what I presume is an attempt at an ad hominem.
Ad hominem might have applied had you actually made an argument, but you didn't do that, you just said "this shows a lack of basic economics education". I'm confused, did you expect a pleasant response to a statement that almost directly translates to "wow you're stupid"?
So a massive increase in the available workforce would not have an inflationary effect?
At the end of world war 2, only 10 percent of married women had a job outside of the home. At the time, wages were such that one earner could support a household. Women entered the workforce en masse, with married women's participation in the workforce rising from that 10% in the mid forties to 50% in 1975. The Economic Policy Institute reports that wages began to stagnate, relative to cost of living and worker productivity, beginning in the year 1968. In 1965, married women constituted 13.7-27.10% (difference attributable to group analysis, one group considers only women with children under the age of 6) of the workforce. In 1975, that same group constituted 50%. Wages began to stagnate before women entered the workforce in this country en masse.
Does the presence of more bodies available to fill jobs drive down wages in general? Of course it does in a capitalist economy. But it is not true that this was the cause of wage stagnation in the late 1900's. That is much more attributable to the loss of well paid manufacturing jobs and the beginning of the economic shift toward a service-based economy, which is what we have today. I bring up the professional jobs and bachelors degrees to illustrate the effect of this economic shift. When wal mart or programmer/doctor/business person are your only two options, due to the loss of the in-between jobs like manufacturing, you're going to see a completely reasonable rise in the demand for higher education (because no-one wants to work at wal mart on purpose). Higher demand translates into higher costs.
So I'll take that as a begrudging yes, it has an inflationary effect. That was the only point I was making. Feel free to accuse me of being a Fox News watcher or whatnot now.
I think it's pretty clear that it was a "no, it isn't the cause of inflation". I'm not sure how many ways I can rephrase "women entering the workforce en masse in the late 1900's was a result of wage stagnation/inflation in cost of living, and not the cause of it". But I guess you feel free to "take that" however you want.
I'll stick with my initial statement and retire to bed for the night. Nights. Enjoy your rage.
No rage here. You asked a question about economics, and I responded to that question with the information and data that made me disagree with your interpretation of history.
When women argue with you, it's because we disagree with you. It's not a result of some uncontrollable emotion.
So now my reaction to you is because you're a woman? And I watch Fox News . . . Got it. You're a sharp one
No I rather felt that was worth mentioning because of the context of our argument. This is a post about feminism in relation to weight loss after all. Surely you anticipated that the content of anything within this post was going to relate back to that? And in any case, you accused me of being in a rage, which is a fairly common thing women hear when they disagree with men and the man in question resorts to insults and snide remarks about education levels rather than present an actual counter-argument.
So it's possible I'm guilty of assumption here, but you've done nothing in our conversation except 1. Accuse me of being emotionally compromised, 2. Insulted me as having a lack of or poor education/intelligence, and 3. Disregarded my argument completely by saying "I'll take that as a yes" when it was most obviously not one. The one and only thing you have not done is actually state your own reasons for why you disagree with the idea ITSELF.
You brought up ad hominem fallacy initially. Does it surprise you that you have enacted it throughout this discussion? I responded with a researched and data-plentiful explanation of my belief when you asked me the question about inflation, and your response was to disregard that and say I was in a rage. You could have countered with your own argument, but you chose instead to essentially say I was emotionally compromised to invalidate what I said. Being written off as over-emotional or emotionally-driven and thus inferior in our ability to argue a point is something women experience on the daily, so, yes, I assumed that was your point based on prior experience.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »lemonlionheart wrote: »I will add though that I do believe in body positivity, which means that regardless of health risks I believe that nobody should be treated with disrespect or made to feel less worthy because of their size. I have several gorgeous, plus-sized lady friends who are happy, healthy, and absolute BABES, and it seems crazy to me that anyone would think these women were unattractive because of their weight. If a friend came to me wanting advice about making a healthy change I would happily give it, but I really feel people have the right to make (informed) choices about their bodies and health.
This. And while I disagree with the idea of HAES, being that it's not medically accurate, I also understand why the movement exists. It would be easy to laugh at the HAES movement and call anyone who believes it stupid, but I defer to Dr. King here "riots are the language of the unheard". HAES exists, incorrect though it is, because people who do not meet societal standards of beauty are treated poorly. HAES exists because people were shamed and treated with cruelty for being fat, rather than supported and enabled to lose the weight and get healthy.
As someone who has been treated with cruelty for being overweight, I get it. I would feel better hiding under the lie of HAES than just accepting mistreatment too. It doesn't make it right, but the answer isn't to say "you're stupid for believing HAES", the answer is to be absolutely intolerant of body-shaming so people don't shell-up and sink into the protective arms of a comfortable lie.
And it's tempting to go with the visceral reaction of "but there's overwhelming evidence that HAES isn't true, why shouldn't I shout that from the rooftops", I get that desire too. But people's children have literally killed themselves because of the cruelty they've experienced as a result of being overweight. I just think that the way to fix the problem is to let the truth be a safer happier place so the lie can finally die from lack of popular support. Like @lemonlionheart said, that means being available as a resource without being so available you're shoving it down people's throats.
How is the idea that being active, at any weight, isn't better than being inactive? Their mission statement is "supports people in adopting health habits for the sake of health and well-being (rather than weight control)."
Some of the ideas supported by HAES are medically inaccurate but at the same time some of the basic principles that focussing on dietary changes results in unhealthy behaviours are right on target - both clinically and by reading the hundreds of posts on here about "I want to lose weight fast" and "Can I lose without exercise". If people were truly concerned about health, rather than some critical observation of the obese, these same people would not be giving advice about weight loss alone (you only need CICO, dietary composition doesn't matter, diet over exercise). People do focus only on weight - rather than actual health markers.
Now HAES has taken that too far, clearly and their reactionary position results not in self acceptance but in blinding themselves about some medical facts and embracing obesity. Not only is what you wrote above (in bold) true but some of the conceptual basis for their criticisms about weight loss thinking remain extremely relevant.
And in the end, I find it extremely odd, that in a discussion of feminism where personal choice might be a common theme, those individuals who decide to personally not focus on weight but rather healthy activity don't find some echo of core support about that personal choice.0 -
OP: I am a feminist. I want to lose weight and gain strength and endurance to be healthy and feel good. I am relatively healthy at this size, but I would be healthier and have more energy at a lower weight. Carrying the extra weight takes a toll on the joints as you age. My goals come from a desire to live longer and to be active longer, not to fit some unattainable, disempowering, dehumanizing ideal.0
-
Before I started losing weight, I always thought I had wanted to lose weight just to fit some kind of standard. I tried very hard to accept myself the way I was before, just to not constantly feel like I had to lose weight. After I started my weight loss journey, I realized it's one of the most feminist things I could do - take control over my own body. I never even knew I could affect my own health and appearance so much, so I feel like it's very powerful for me.
Also, now I know I'm doing it 100% just for me. Which feels pretty great.1 -
I have no horse in this race as I have never felt oppressed or discriminated against for being obese, or for being a woman for that matter. There was no social pressure to wear makeup, for example, so I chose not to, while other women choose to do so on a daily basis because that's their preference, and there are plenty of women around in either camp with no real expectations from society regarding this matter. There was some pressure to lose weight with all the magazines and beauty standards in the media, but I guess I just filtered out the noise and didn't care enough to ride the fad diet rollercoaster other than an occasional "something to do" with my friends when I was a teen. My decision to lose weight came about after a health scare and being given the choice by the doctor to either lose weight or go on medications. It was presented to me as a choice without any hint of judgement. As a grownup I chose to stay at home and work from home with no negative feedback from people and in a field where wages are skill-based and you aren't even asked about your gender.
I had to disclose this background to explain why I may not be as enthusiastic as some about this topic and why it's weird to me. If feminism is about equal rights and freedom of choice for all genders, why are people who freely choose to conform to certain society standards because it makes them happy are viewed in a negative light by some of the members of a movement that values freedom of choice? Why are we pressured to deliberately be nonconformists just for the sake of it? It reminds me of teenage rebellion and strikes me as immature for this to even be an issue. So people (note, people, not just women) are generally influenced by the society and social standards to different degrees, so what? It's human nature and I see nothing wrong with that. I may not be influenced by wanting a big butt or an athletic thin and strong look (which is awesome, just not for me) simply because it never felt important, but I am influenced by some other social standard and don't see why I should be ashamed of that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions