G.Anderson, November 4 at 12:12am,

Not necessarily; curses last for generations.

To be cursed by the devil is to truly be blessed.

G.Anderson, November 3 at 11:17am,

Rubbish.  Amorphous nonsense.

Since personal experience is all you really care about the following is a story drawn from my experience, one that is much different than yours.

Once upon a time there were two sisters, Chris and Kristie. Chris was a devout Christian, and Kristie was a feminist. Chris Married a young missionary on his return from mission and had seven children, 4 boys and 3 girls. Chris’s husband is very hardworking, and Chris felt it was her duty to support him by being the best homemaker she could be. All of her children were married by the time they were 30, and many had gone on missions of their own.  At an early age they all had good starts on having large families. Chris was also politically active and worked as volunteer for Mit Romney’s election campaign. 

Kirstie believed in education, and got her PhD in women’s studies. She became an educator. However she couldn’t find a husband, so well into her 50’s she decided on artificial insemination. After her two children were born, she sued the sperm bank to find the name of her sperm donor and sued him for child support. The donor turned out to be a successful doctor. He was thrilled to find out he had children. However, he went to prison for violating the courts non contact order for sending his children a Christmas card.  Later he committed suicide due to the stain of his child support orders, which amounted to more than his monthly salary as a doctor. 

Kirstie’s son was on ADHD medication by the time he was 4. At 10, Bi-Polar meds were added. As a teenager he became a drug addict and ran way from home, he’s awaiting a liver transplant and is receiving ECT, for his chronic depression. Her daughter has a successful career as a television producer. She likes shows that depict strong women leaders, who have a cadre of busty supporters and a few feminized males who make witty and supportive comments but remain in the background. She’s vowed to never marry, and anyway she’s much to busy with her career, and daily psychoanalysis.

If you can’t successfully reproduce then biologically your a failure.

Re: G.Anderson

Your comment: ”“Conservative Protestant denominations as a whole grew much faster than liberal ones in 20th-century America, and it has been estimated that three-quarters of this growth is due simply to higher birth rates.”

This is the 21st Century, therefore the data is changing.  From the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:

“An extensive new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life details statistics on religion in America and explores the shifts taking place in the U.S. religious landscape. Based on interviews with more than 35,000 Americans age 18 and older, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey finds that religious affiliation in the U.S. is both very diverse and extremely fluid.....

....To illustrate this point, one need only look at the biggest gainer in this religious competition - the unaffiliated group. People moving into the unaffiliated category outnumber those moving out of the unaffiliated group by more than a three-to-one margin. At the same time, however, a substantial number of people (nearly 4% of the overall adult population) say that as children they were unaffiliated with any particular religion but have since come to identify with a religious group. This means that more than half of people who were unaffiliated with any particular religion as a child now say that they are associated with a religious group. In short, the Landscape Survey shows that the unaffiliated population has grown despite having one of the lowest retention rates of all “religious” groups.” (emphasis mine)
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Simply because evangelicals scream the loudest does not mean that people are listening.  In fact, I find “screamers” to be more likely ignored and abhorred than taken seriously.  I agree with MarthaA, NOT.  For what it’s worth, my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE has proven to me that the meekest of the meek can fall the biggest of trees.  There’s a reason for that, but that’s another story.

G.Anderson, November 3 at 12:13am,

NOT.

Actually to be blunt I don’t except your personal experience or anyone else’s as I’ve said at least twice.

This from the Ecomist, Winter 2008

“Conservative Protestant denominations as a whole grew much faster than liberal ones in 20th-century America, and it has been estimated that three-quarters of this growth is due simply to higher birth rates. Were it not for the fact that Evangelical Christians reproduce faster than other Protestants, George Bush—who attracted most of the Evangelical votes—probably could not have made it back to the White House in 2004. 

“The rapid rise of Mormons in America, growing by an average of 40% every decade in the 20th century, is mainly due to their large families. The American state with the highest birth rate is Utah, which is around 70% Mormon. In America, on average, Mormon women have nearly three times more children than Jewish women.” 

” A similar but more gradual increase in the religious right has been taking place in America for decades, and not just because of Mormons. Conservative Protestant denominations as a whole grew much faster than liberal ones in 20th-century America, and it has been estimated that three-quarters of this growth is due simply to higher birth rates. Were it not for the fact that Evangelical Christians reproduce faster than other Protestants, George Bush—who attracted most of the Evangelical votes—probably could not have made it back to the White House in 2004.” 

http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/story/faith-equals-fertility

If you want to see the future of this country look at Utah..like it or not that’s where were going..

Re: G.Anderson

>Again I will attempt to help you see the point I was making instead of the one you claim I made.  From my earlier post:

“Also G.Anderson, you claim that “often personal experience is delusional”, yet use PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in an attempt to qualify your position, such as: “I can find many women who describe themselves as “recovered feminists” who are now happily married with children and who also live lives in which religion plays a central role.”  This is nonsensical.  Either you accept personal experience as a qualifier or you do not.

If you accept personal experience then my comment in the original post is every bit as meritorious as yours, possibly moreso given the statistical evidence.  My comment:

I did not witness your claims (that fundamentalist marriage arrangements make women happy) nor did I experience them.  On the other hand, I was trained to “understand” that “no matter what happened”, I would still be “happier” in the present arrangement.  I found this to be the BIGGEST LIE OF ALL.”

Your comment:  “Relgious fundamentalism is the fastest growing group, not because they are happy, but because they have large families, and because a very large percentage of immigrants identify with them and also have large families.”

> This is an unsubstanciated claim.  Again a portion of my earlier link from Copernicus, which refutes your claim:

“Copernicus discovered that among the general population, the number of Americans who consider themselves religiously liberal increased much more dramatically over the course of 30 years while the number of fundamentalists increased only marginally.”

Additionally, could you link to a reliable source which would support your following claim:

You claim:  “A large pecentage of the population of non fundamentalists have decided never to get married, but once again this is not the point.”

Your comment: “There’s a price to pay for this, and there are many who wish that the choices had not been made, for a whole future generation without their consent.”

> There’s a price to pay for WHAT…?  What are you speaking of here?  Your assertions are all over the place, unsubstanciated and without logical order.

Per your comment: “You have misunderstood my opinions, as supporting fundamentalist religions which I do not, instead of what they were, a counterpoint, an alternative to the eviseration of marriage by the feminist political agenda.”

> You make several comments which support fundamentalist perspectives and stances, such as the following:

“those polls and studies, of which you write, indicate that women whose lives are considered to be dominated by religious values are the happiest of all women. That’s right, women who would be considered as fundamentalist types are the happiest of all women’s groups in this country.

“Where men see no reason to marry, but instead hold onto their adolescence as long as possible.
Fortunately this will all be rectified, when fundamentalist groups become the majority of the voting public in about 20 years.”

“This marginalization of women’s roles as parent and mother has been accomplished by the use of government intervention into the home,”

“the fact remains, that women are unhappy to a distrubing degree by the lives they lead in this country.  It’s crystal clear to me why this is so.”

“It’s the destruction of relationships by the political view points and social actions of feminists”

All of the above comments are fundamentalist viewpoints.  Although this particular comment OUTRIGHTLY supports fundamentalism, “Fortunately this will all be rectified, when fundamentalist groups become the majority”.

Once again you comments are disengenuous, first of all your experience as a recovered fundamentalist, has no more bearing on the issues, than someone who becomes a feminist after they have been a fundamentalist. Both are personal ancedotal, and neither one means anything beyond the personal. Once again try to understand instead of becoming reactive and defensive.

Secondly, it dosen’t surprise me much that fundamentalists have more divorces, because they actually get married.

A large pecentage of the population of non fundamentalists have decided never to get married, but once again this is not the point. It’s the why that matters.

It’s the destruction of relationships by the political view points and social actions of feminists, and defense of them in the face of the results that are. 

You have misunderstood my opinions, as supporting fundamentalist religions which I do not, instead of what they were, a counterpoint, an alternative to the eviseration of marriage by the feminist political agenda.

I could have just as easily picked on another group.

Relgious fundamentalism is the fastest growing group, not because they are happy, but because they have large families, and because a very large percentage of immigrants identify with them and also have large families.

Finally, a boyfriend can never by a husband, and a girlfriend never be a wife.

There’s a price to pay for this, and there are many who wish that the choices had not been made, for a whole future generation without their consent.

Re: MarthaA

Your comment: “I think you have ThomasG confused with someone else, because the above is the only thing ThomasG posted on this thread, which had nothing to do strictly with women, only happiness.”

Absolutely.  Thank you Martha, you are correct.  That should read, “Also G.Anderson, you claim that “often personal experience is delusional”,

Sorry ThomasG, my bad.

Outraged, November 1 at 11:10 pm #

“Part 2.”

“By ThomasG, October 30 at 4:16 pm #

The “pursuit of happiness” according to Ray Bradbury in “Fahrenheit 451” is the pursuit of ignorance.  It is interesting to note that the Constitution of the United States guarantees everyone the “pursuit of happiness”, ignorance.  This may be the genesis and the continuing cause of our problems in the United States with regard to Wall Street, the economy and education.  We need higher standards than life, liberty and the pursuit of ignorance, happiness.

I think you have ThomasG confused with someone else, because the above is the only thing ThomasG posted on this thread, which had nothing to do strictly with women, only happiness.

Re: G.Anderson

Sorry, the last two posts of mine were directed toward you.  I inadvertantly forgot to “address” them.

Part 2.

Your comment: “That being said I am sure I can find many women who describe themselves as “recovered feminists” who are now happily married with children and who also live lives in which religion plays a central role.  While I am sure that this is disturbing to some, many more will understand exactly why without my instruction.”

You continue to make the implication that being a fundamentalist mother and/or wife will make women happy.  Again statistics do not show that to be the case.

“A recent study by the Barna Research Group throws extreme doubt on these estimates. Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is ±2 percentage points. The survey found:

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Also ThomasG, you claim that “often personal experience is delusional”, yet use PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in an attempt to qualify your position, such as: “I can find many women who describe themselves as “recovered feminists” who are now happily married with children and who also live lives in which religion plays a central role.”  This is nonsensical.  Either you accept personal experience as a qualifier or you do not.

If you accept personal experience then my comment in the original post is every bit as meritorious as yours, possibly moreso given the statistical evidence.  My comment:

“I did not witness your claims (that fundamentalist marriage arrangements make women happy) nor did I experience them.  On the other hand, I was trained to “understand” that “no matter what happened”, I would still be “happier” in the present arrangement.  I found this to be the BIGGEST LIE OF ALL.”

Your comment: “A nation where for a large number of aging women, loneliness, and social isolation is their only future, comforted each day by Ambian, and handful of Xanax..  Where men see no reason to marry, but instead hold onto their adolescence as long as possible.

Fortunately this will all be rectified, when fundamentalist groups become the majority of the voting public in about 20 years.”

That doesn’t appear to be the case.  Factually, fundamentalism shows stagnant growth, as this article shows:

“New analysis from Copernicus Marketing Consulting and Research, a firm that helps Fortune 500 companies make better marketing decisions, reveals that the popular perception among Hollywood studios, politicians, marketers, and many others that the number of Americans who consider themselves fundamentalist is growing at a much faster rate than those with less orthodox or evangelical views has no basis in fact.

Copernicus discovered that among the general population, the number of Americans who consider themselves religiously liberal increased much more dramatically over the course of 30 years while the number of fundamentalists increased only marginally. Liberals expanded from 18 percent of the population in 1972 to 29 percent in 2002, while fundamentalists grew from 27 percent in 1972 to 30 percent in 2002. Moderates, on the other hand, decreased considerably, from 52 percent in 1972 to 36 percent in 2002, adding credence to the notion that American society is polarizing over time. “American society today is actually just as religiously liberal as it is fundamentalist,” explained Claire Cropper, vice president of statistical services at Copernicus.”
http://www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/religion study.shtml

In case I missed something somewhere, Outraged, I don’t remember ever addressing you or your experience, in my comment. Personal experience, does not necessarily make truth, because often personal experience is delusional.

Let me spell it out, no matter how much your individual experience differs from the overall happiness of women and their reasons for being unhappy, it can never be anything but your own experience.

That being said I am sure I can find many women who describe themselves as “recovered feminists” who are now happily married with children and who also live lives in which religion plays a central role.  While I am sure that this is disturbing to some, many more will understand exactly why without my instruction.

Nothing I can say or do is going to change your personal opinion about what I say. But, the fact remains, that women are unhappy to a distrubing degree by the lives they lead in this country. 

It’s crystal clear to me why this is so. I’m also sure many millions more will be outraged by my opinion.

The most happy countrys in the world are Scandinavia and the Netherlands, small country’s with still a good homogene feeling in his society.

And in this case the following words don’t say the truth ” the happines is with the domb people “.

Most of the time in this countrys its the social thinking thats geth the preferanse, self discipline, and openess with freedom of thinking.

Its very importand that people are happy, that makes living to gether so much easyer and nicer.

Re: G.Andersen

Your comment: “We also have a nation, in which husbands have been turned into boyfriends, and wives into girlfriends. But a boyfriend can never be a husband, and a girlfriend can never be a wife. Do you even understand this?”

Sincerely…. I don’t.  What do you mean by “Do you even understand this?”  Understand that husbands are not boyfriends and wives are not girlfriends…..?  What do you PRECISELY mean by this, are you saying there is a specific role, if so….. what is it?  What should “a husband” be and what supposedly should “a wife” be?  To me, you are claiming that there ARE specifics, if so… what are they?  Additionally, will all be in agreement regarding the specifics you endorse?

Your comment: “instead of dwelling on the negative let’s examine what those studies show. In fact those polls and studies, of which you write, indicate that women whose lives are considered to be dominated by religious values are the happiest of all women. That’s right, women who would be considered as fundamentalist types are the happiest of all women’s groups in this country. Incidentally fundamentalist religious groups are also the fasted growing demographic in this country.”

I disagree.  By what standard or measure are you claiming this to be true?  I was at one time a fundamentalist, for this reason… I adamantly disagree.  I did not witness your claims nor did I experience them.  On the other hand, I was trained to “understand” that “no matter what happened”, I would still be “happier” in the present arrangement.  I found this to be the BIGGEST LIE OF ALL.  One of us is not being truthful with ourselves.  It appears that this would be you or I.  I’ll debate it.

Happiness is overrated.

Just an added note on “happiness” or “self-reported subjective well-being” or whatever. The vaguer the vocabulary used, the less definitive the survey.  Use of terms like this makes any survey unreliable.
Perhaps that’s why this subject, important as it is, has elicited few responses because nobody knows what anybody is talking about. In addition one could question whether “happiness” or SSWB are even laudable goals.  One thing for sure—the more doors you open, the more you learn and the more doors you close, the less.  That’s what I find so stifling in the idea that in 20 years fundamentalist religion will yield any benefits whatsoever—for women or for anyone else.

Actually, no instead of patting yourself on the back for what you believe you have accomplished, you should be facing the cold hard facts, about what women really feel, and the reasons so many are unhappy.  Part of the reason why this is, is because not all women are unhappy in the way you described. Not because they haven’t achieved some sort of success as you define it.

But instead of dwelling on the negative let’s examine what those studies show.
In fact those polls and studies, of which you write, indicate that women whose lives are considered to be dominated by religious values are the happiest of all women. That’s right, women who would be considered as fundamentalist types are the happiest of all women’s groups in this country. Incidentally fundamentalist religious groups are also the fasted growing demographic in this country.

Maybe that’s because these women have found support for having children, and raising a family, instead of seeing their lives as mothers and parents marginalized and devalued to an extreme, replaced instead by the dual roles of full time worker and part time parent, and a valueless corporate belief system.

This marginalization of women’s roles as parent and mother has been accomplished by the use of government intervention into the home, and usurpation of the once private “womb” of family life, by that state and turning it into a public sphere, to the detriment of each and every child in this country.

We now have a nation of children without families, and families without children. Increasingly, one in which courts supervise children, but cannot parent them. 

We also have a nation, in which husbands have been turned into boyfriends, and wives into girlfriends. But a boyfriend can never be a husband, and a girlfriend can never be a wife. Do you even understand this?

A nation where for a large number of aging women, loneliness, and social isolation is their only future, comforted each day by Ambian, and handful of Xanax..  Where men see no reason to marry, but instead hold onto their adolescence as long as possible.

Fortunately this will all be rectified, when fundamentalist groups become the majority of the voting public in about 20 years.

Ladies, the power has always been yours. We men are results of what we thought you wanted us to be. I have been fortunate to come from the simpler(?) times being able to see the changes and the reasoning that you are growing more unhappy with changing roles. No doubt men had it made and the movement made us aware of what we wanted to keep a secret. Every male was an encouraged smoker back then and women rarely did. Their cancer rates were lower than men and their ages were higher at death which, to me, seemed common sense that smoking was a large contributing factor. I quit, and for those who lost their lives in order to make me aware, I am sorry. Women have progressively moved toward being equal to men, when they were already ahead. You taught men to get in touch with our feminine sides, and men progressively listen, spending more and more time looking in the mirror, putting more value in how they look more than acting like the real men you want us to be (HUH?). We are being made more aware that we too can be house husbands and find what it was like to be wives and mothers “only”. I don’t blame women for feeling increasingly less happy with this new position in life. You had also taught us that stress sucks and kills. I can only say thank you for saving my life. I have much more time now to put my feet up and control the remote.

Feminism as a movement stalled a long time ago and women are still barraged with stereotypes they are supposed to live up to (the issue of Image for one).

Maybe the authors should try and re-invigorate the issue of Feminism (by tackling the unsolved issues),

rather than write a tiresome diatribe about how “unhappy” women are now.

The “pursuit of happiness” according to Ray Bradbury in “Fahrenheit 451” is the pursuit of ignorance.  It is interesting to note that the Constitution of the United States guarantees everyone the “pursuit of happiness”, ignorance.  This may be the genesis and the continuing cause of our problems in the United States with regard to Wall Street, the economy and education.  We need higher standards than life, liberty and the pursuit of ignorance, happiness.

“Or, for that matter, is a subjective assessment of well-being, ye ol’ happiness, a pretty useless way to assess social change?

A subjective assessment is NEVER the way to assess social change or anything else, but subjectivity assessments against the Left, liberals, socialists, socialism and Liberalism and community resources is the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Republican Movement’s Way to assess social change, which was also Adolph Hitler’s Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Movement’s Way to assess social change, and that didn’t work out so well for the people of the MAJORITY Common Population.

Thanks, Ellen Goodman.  I’m one of those who exchanged the conventional role for a job, helping with money, exploring the “outside world.”  And reaped lots of extravagant verbal praise (sometimes envious, sometimes insincere) and lots of criticism, veiled and otherwise.  I can look back and regard the past as either a success or a failure, or both, or neither. Just about the same as everybody else, more or less.  Anyway, I chose.