>the main other issue with using those articles as the basis for the argument against feminism is that they're all about marriage specifically. I think a big part of the point of feminism is to try to get it to the point where women aren't completely dependent on their marriages for their life happiness . . .
The NY Times article which forms the basis of the argument isn't really about marriage, it's about differences in happiness between the sexes. It just necessarily ended up talking about marriage because when they did their time-budget study of men and women they found that the differences seemed to have to do with the whole marriage situation.
>I think a big part of the point of feminism is to try to get it to the point where women aren't completely dependent on their marriages for their life happiness, not any more than men are . . .
My issue remains the same. Supposing this is possible and the end result of feminism, is it worth it if women like the new situation less? In other words, is it better for women to have less happiness, but for the happiness they do have not to be dependent on marriage. Or is it better for women to have more happiness, but that happiness dependent on marriage? I don't know.
When you don't know how to run someone else's life I think it's generally a good idea to let them run it instead. In the past feminism served the role of fighting to allow women to even make choices for themselves in the first place. I think that was a good thing. Today women are the head-count majority of a democracy with wealth, income, and education rates that aren't terribly far from parity. Feminism as a movement should therefore be settling down and letting women do whatever it is they want to do, but instead feminism seems to just keep ramping up, requiring not that women be allowed to make choices, but that great effort and money be spent