Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:13 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:33 pm
And yet, I seem to understand that materialism doesn’t equal happiness. It’s hardly PhD stuff, Gary. Everybody knows it.

It doesn't equal misery either.

Right. What the studies show is that money only matters up to around a middle-subsistence level; after that, it has a weak negative relationship to happiness...in other words, beyond a certain point, it actually detracts from happiness, though only mildly. And this explains why so many rich people are also miserable human beings: the "more money" strategy just isn't working for them.

So let's forget the nonsense about economic advantage leading to happiness. It's just not true.

Can you show me some of these studies that show wealth has a "negative" relationship to happiness?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:13 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:41 pm
It doesn't equal misery either.

Right. What the studies show is that money only matters up to around a middle-subsistence level; after that, it has a weak negative relationship to happiness...in other words, beyond a certain point, it actually detracts from happiness, though only mildly. And this explains why so many rich people are also miserable human beings: the "more money" strategy just isn't working for them.

So let's forget the nonsense about economic advantage leading to happiness. It's just not true.

Can you show me some of these studies that show wealth has a "negative" relationship to happiness?

Gary, I could...but do you need the data? And would you even believe it? Doesn't "money doesn't buy happiness" make a dent on you, or are you actually going to defend the belief that all people need in order to be happy is more money? Seriously?

Well, you love the UN. So try the UN Inclusive Wealth Report, 1950-2000, 2012, if you really want to see it. They even have a very nice chart that shows exactly what I was saying.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:40 pm So things like love, relationships, duty, fatherhood, motherhood, family, having kids…these are going to be pushed increasingly aside in the pursuit of material prosperity.

I don't think that the underlying motivation for "I am a strong and independent woman, and I don't need no man" is particularly much driven by materialism.

In my opinion, the biggest problem is that you cannot outsource the education of your daughters to the government and its schools. It will certainly not inure to their benefit.

The feminist life strategy simply leads to a dead end. Women who adopt it, end up single and childless. You don't want your daughters to end up like that.

The government-controlled school system has clearly developed into an existential threat to survival of society itself. So, it is a question of stopping to use it, and stopping to pay for it.

The most straightforward solution at an individual level is to move elsewhere.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:40 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:13 pm
Right. What the studies show is that money only matters up to around a middle-subsistence level; after that, it has a weak negative relationship to happiness...in other words, beyond a certain point, it actually detracts from happiness, though only mildly. And this explains why so many rich people are also miserable human beings: the "more money" strategy just isn't working for them.

So let's forget the nonsense about economic advantage leading to happiness. It's just not true.

Can you show me some of these studies that show wealth has a "negative" relationship to happiness?

Gary, I could...but do you need the data? And would you even believe it? Doesn't "money doesn't buy happiness" make a dent on you, or are you actually going to defend the belief that all people need in order to be happy is more money? Seriously?

Well, you love the UN. So try the UN Inclusive Wealth Report, 1950-2000, 2012, if you really want to see it. They even have a very nice chart that shows exactly what I was saying.

No one is saying money is the only component to happiness. You seem to think it causes unhappiness, however. So where's the data?

godelian wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 10:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 8:40 pm So things like love, relationships, duty, fatherhood, motherhood, family, having kids…these are going to be pushed increasingly aside in the pursuit of material prosperity.

I don't think that the underlying motivation for "I am a strong and independent woman, and I don't need no man" is particularly much driven by materialism.

It is, actually. What do you think they understand as the certification of "strong, independent"? It's careerism, not family. But don't put it all on the women; the men aren't making good choices, either.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 10:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:40 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:32 pm

Can you show me some of these studies that show wealth has a "negative" relationship to happiness?

Gary, I could...but do you need the data? And would you even believe it? Doesn't "money doesn't buy happiness" make a dent on you, or are you actually going to defend the belief that all people need in order to be happy is more money? Seriously?

Well, you love the UN. So try the UN Inclusive Wealth Report, 1950-2000, 2012, if you really want to see it. They even have a very nice chart that shows exactly what I was saying.

No one is saying money is the only component to happiness. You seem to think it causes unhappiness, however. So where's the data?

You haven't been listening to what I've been saying, and you haven't even bothered to check the data I gave you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:09 am It is, actually. What do you think they understand as the certification of "strong, independent"? It's careerism, not family.

These women may not want "more" money.

They simply do not want to be dependent on the money provided by a male provider. That seems to be their main motivation.

The problem is that gender role specialization is a biological phenomenon. The physical phenomenon of sexual dimorphism exists specifically to facilitate specialized gender roles. There is not enough flexibility or degrees of freedom in biology to deviate from this physical reality.

Feminism overestimates biological flexibility.

Human behavior is indeed flexible but not as much as feminists seem to believe it is.

Men know that a so-called independent woman will not be consistent and will sooner or later start demanding that the man takes responsibility anyway, financial or otherwise.

In fact, it is always the feminist woman who wants to restore gender roles, and not the man.

The male approach is to treat the feminist woman as an equal until she does not want that anymore, and until she wants to restore gender roles instead. At that point, the man dumps her and moves on.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:09 am It is, actually. What do you think they understand as the certification of "strong, independent"? It's careerism, not family.

These women may not want "more" money. They simply do not want to be dependent on the money provided by a male provider. That seems to be their main motivation.

Well, even if we grant you that, I don't think any of that has to do with "democracy." That thesis just won't hold up.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 5:12 am

godelian wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:09 am It is, actually. What do you think they understand as the certification of "strong, independent"? It's careerism, not family.

These women may not want "more" money. They simply do not want to be dependent on the money provided by a male provider. That seems to be their main motivation.

Well, even if we grant you that, I don't think any of that has to do with "democracy." That thesis just won't hold up.

Feminism is just one problem. Claiming assets and/or income from the husband upon leaving the marriage is another one.

These divorce laws were invented by a democracy with female suffrage.

These laws do not exist in countries that are not democratic or which are democratic in name only.

Personally, I vote with my feet. I do not want to live in a so-called democratic country. That kind of country is very bad for your private life. I never live in a so-called democratic country. I avoid that kind of countries like the plague.

My assets are mine. My current and future income is mine. These things do not belong to the one or the other bitch just because I happen to sometimes fuck her.

That is why I strongly prefer dictatorships. Seriously, fuck democracy.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 5:12 am

godelian wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:36 am
These women may not want "more" money. They simply do not want to be dependent on the money provided by a male provider. That seems to be their main motivation.

Well, even if we grant you that, I don't think any of that has to do with "democracy." That thesis just won't hold up.

Feminism is just one problem. Claiming assets and/or income from the husband upon leaving the marriage is another one.

But it's not democracy. Democracy has no relevance to that problem.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:01 am

. I never live in a so-called democratic country. I avoid that kind of countries like the plague.

Thank you, godelian! Those of us who live in "so-called democratic countries" appreciate your absence, although we sympathize with your current neighbors.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:11 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 10:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 9:40 pm
Gary, I could...but do you need the data? And would you even believe it? Doesn't "money doesn't buy happiness" make a dent on you, or are you actually going to defend the belief that all people need in order to be happy is more money? Seriously?

Well, you love the UN. So try the UN Inclusive Wealth Report, 1950-2000, 2012, if you really want to see it. They even have a very nice chart that shows exactly what I was saying.

No one is saying money is the only component to happiness. You seem to think it causes unhappiness, however. So where's the data?

You haven't been listening to what I've been saying, and you haven't even bothered to check the data I gave you.

If you think women ought to have economic opportunities as men do to support themselves and not be at the mercy of men to make money for them, then we are in agreement and there's no need to argue. If not, then we aren't in agreement.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 5:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:11 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 10:59 pm

No one is saying money is the only component to happiness. You seem to think it causes unhappiness, however. So where's the data?

You haven't been listening to what I've been saying, and you haven't even bothered to check the data I gave you.

If you think women ought to have economic opportunities as men do to support themselves and not be at the mercy of men to make money for them, then we are in agreement and there's no need to argue. If not, then we aren't in agreement.

"Same economic opportunities," you say, Gary? If they were the "same," then women under 30 should have far fewer privileges and advantages than they get now, and women over 30 should be expected to stay in careers until 65 and not give birth, and climb the career ladder, instead. Women should also take the same dangerous and time-eating jobs that men do, keep doing the same amount of training, and retire when men do. And if they did, then yes, they should definitely have the same economic opportunities and the same serious burdens that men do.

But if they don't, then maybe they don't even WANT the same economic conditions as men. That's what actually turns out to be the case, and every sociological study of any weight in recent history shows it. When men and women are given the same options as each other, difference don't disappear...they maximize. Women still choose to become teachers, nurses and social workers, and men choose to be engineers, sports professionals, auto mechanics and oil drillers. (On the average, of course...there are exceptions, but they are rare.)

So before you campaign for equality, perhaps you should consider that equality will never serve the interests of women, because on the average, they have different values and interests than men have. If you put them on a completely level playing field, men will dominate, every time. And absent special provisions, women will be put at a permanent disadvantage in many areas of life.

It's like women's sports: what happens when men are allowed into them? You know the answer. And the same happens in fields like law, where you would think the reliance on brain-power would make things equal. Men still dominate there: and why? Is it prejudice? Nope. It's that few women are crazy enough to want to work 80 hour weeks and never have any family life. And some men are that crazy. And the few women that join them end up ahead of the men because of affirmative action measures. If men and women behave the same, there's already no difference between their outcomes -- except that the women end up somewhat advantaged. But who really wants to be that manly kind of woman?

The opportunities are there. But the price of equality is too high for many women.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 5:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 4:11 am
You haven't been listening to what I've been saying, and you haven't even bothered to check the data I gave you.

If you think women ought to have economic opportunities as men do to support themselves and not be at the mercy of men to make money for them, then we are in agreement and there's no need to argue. If not, then we aren't in agreement.

"Same economic opportunities," you say, Gary?

Here's your problem. I'm not saying "same economic opportunities" as in exact same. I said "women ought to have economic opportunities as men do." Men have the ability to provide for themselves before they get married. Women ought to be able to also, if they so choose. IE women shouldn't be at the mercy of men who are able to trap them in an unwanted relationship because the female has no where else to turn for economic support. That's been my argument with Goedlian which you jumped into and misinterpreted everything I've said from the get go.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 7:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 5:58 pm

If you think women ought to have economic opportunities as men do to support themselves and not be at the mercy of men to make money for them, then we are in agreement and there's no need to argue. If not, then we aren't in agreement.

"Same economic opportunities," you say, Gary?

Here's your problem.

I'm not having one, thanks.

I'm not saying "same economic opportunities" as in exact same.

Silly me. I imagined "same" meant "same."

So you're advocating privilege. That's not a whole lot better, I have to say.