[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair Kizzy I think you're overlooking the fact that he didn't say that being happy is bad... in fact he says it's desireable... but it's also changeable and I personally agree that it's very important to acknowledge that. In the modern world, the message has become confused; the original "pursuit of Happiness" is really talking about the pursuit of contentment, fulfilment, and meaning. There's a common AND VERY DANGEROUS misconception these days that people should be happy all of the time and that something is fundamentally "wrong" if you aren't happy, right now, every moment. But happiness is just one of a whole spectrum of fleeting emotions that comprise human existence... it's NOT a goal, and if you make "happiness" your life goal, you're in for a disappointment... because you'll be happy, then sad, then devastated, then melancholy, then happy again, then devastated, then relieved, then happy, then bored... etc etc. The goal of always being in a permanent state of happiness is unattainable. But people DO seek it, and when it doesn't work out, it causes feeling of failure, depression, anxiety. It causes people to run to the doctor for pills at the first sign of "feeling unhappy" - because there's an idea that normal people "shouldn't feel unhappy" even temporarily.

All he's saying is... seek real meaning elsewhere. Embrace the happy / joyful times when they are there, but accept that life's phases are not always happy ones. You have no idea what's just over the horizon and if you expect it to always be good, happy things then you are screwed... and you also have to accept that you can never have full control over what comes next.


It's also an oversight to suggest that he's "just another individualistic Tory" - as he's a vocal supporter of full Universal Healthcare for all and also in favour of strong benefits systems / large amounts of wealth distribution. Economically speaking he's about as far from Tory as it gets.


The basics of that come into his ideas about accepting the fundamental differences between males and females, too. Like in that video he mentions how, left to their own devices, females are more attracted to healthcare roles than males and males are more attracted to technical roles than women. This is part of creating the overall pay gap, because technical positions are higher paid than healthcare positions. There's a bull**** idea that to address the pay gap, the thing to do is to shuffle everyone up - shift more women into better paid technical roles... that they don't actually want... because then there'll be a smaller wealth gap. Overlooking the fact that men and women just ARE psychologically different and want different careers... and instead of saying "everyone is the same and can do the same jobs"... you can just as easily address the pay gap simply by paying healthcare providers more.

I didn't suggest he had said it was bad just that it was 'pointless'
There is no chance of people being happy all of the time, it's a forgone conclusion that here will be times if not huge swaths of your life where you will be anything but due you a myriad of contributory factors, that said it doesn't necessarily follow that the pursuit of happiness is a flawed concept.

What even is happiness? My happiness it different you yours and his, so how can he comment on it as a general term? He has no clue what my perception of 'happiness' is to render it 'pointless'.

When you are not happy there is always hope,
Please don't attempt to explain things to me as that never ends well, I have stated my view based on the full interview it's my opinion on the topic as I see it 'm not seeking to alter anyones view with my own and I'm not looking for mine analysed either.

I see you suggesting I'm wrong for my view on his ideology, my response to that is I am aware of his views on social policy but my opinion as to his core values stands.

Gender roles are in my opinion governed by socialisation , I don't know which interview you were watching but the onus wasn't on only on 'technical' roles, it was in the main discussing the masculine use of competitiveness and female being 'agreeable'. Your view misses the point entirely.

In you judgement that Women ARE psychologically different, how does that compare in say the case of the BBC female reporters being paid less than their male counterparts? Even though they have fought to get where they are and used all the combativeness the males spoiling for their role used?