Most young men are single - most young women are not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Men (and women) have more than two options. These types of reductive arguments are unhelpful.

So name one. And it can't be "make women slaves again".

C’mon. Be better than that.

Still waiting for those options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the cold hard truth ladies. Unless you were born rich you got to pick a Horse and ride it.

Meaning for example my wife had a friend very pretty but literally worked electric company, Dad a retired cop, grew up shoebox cape on the tracks.

She tried at 24 to land a millionaire. She was peak beauty. Blonde, skinny and full. Guess what the rich older guys not looking for broke blondes for third tier colleges.

So she found a 26 year old good looking guy also broke, but he was starting out as a broker on Wall Street. She bet on his successes. She got on that horse and rode it all to a two million dollar home and a new BMW. She has not worked in 25 years.

Meanwhile that same guy once loaded was not looking for her.

My wife did the same married me in 1998 I was making 55k and she was making 55k. But I had MBA and talk and good looking. She saw potential. By 2007 I was making 400k a year. She also was good looking grew up tiny cape blue collar parents.

Pick your horse and ride then ladies. Lot easier to marry a rich guy before they are rich

Why do I need a horse at all if I can make money on my own? You seem to be implying that in every case the woman wants to put her own dreams on hold in order to live vicariously through someone else. Those days are over. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, as Betty Friedan once said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like women have seen their roles in society shift and have risen to the occasion (with our increased educational and economic opportunities comes the expectation that we'll be equal financial partners in addition to birthing/raising kids). Why can't men rise to the occasion if they want a partner?

Men are traditionally willing to marry in any direction on the economic ladder. Women are traditionally willing to marry up or laterally. Take both of those into account and you have a mismatch that gets exacerbated when women start surpassing men in education

Men need to step up. It's a dog eat dog world. Women don't even require a man to be all that good looking.

It's not really a dog eat dog world for women, plenty of empathy and social support for their problems.

\
Men seem to not want empathy. It's too emasculating. They just want women to lower their standards.

Women have no use for a man who wants empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like women have seen their roles in society shift and have risen to the occasion (with our increased educational and economic opportunities comes the expectation that we'll be equal financial partners in addition to birthing/raising kids). Why can't men rise to the occasion if they want a partner?

Men are traditionally willing to marry in any direction on the economic ladder. Women are traditionally willing to marry up or laterally. Take both of those into account and you have a mismatch that gets exacerbated when women start surpassing men in education

Men need to step up. It's a dog eat dog world. Women don't even require a man to be all that good looking.

It's not really a dog eat dog world for women, plenty of empathy and social support for their problems.

\
Men seem to not want empathy. It's too emasculating. They just want women to lower their standards.

Women have no use for a man who wants empathy.

This is the truth. Men, nobody gives a crap about your problems. Go out in the world and make it by yourself or fall by the wayside. There will be no shelters or programs or sympathy for you. Just deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like women have seen their roles in society shift and have risen to the occasion (with our increased educational and economic opportunities comes the expectation that we'll be equal financial partners in addition to birthing/raising kids). Why can't men rise to the occasion if they want a partner?

Men are traditionally willing to marry in any direction on the economic ladder. Women are traditionally willing to marry up or laterally. Take both of those into account and you have a mismatch that gets exacerbated when women start surpassing men in education

Men need to step up. It's a dog eat dog world. Women don't even require a man to be all that good looking.

If they can't find a partner through career, they should work out. Being hot will go a long way. Women are expected to stay in shape but a lot of guys just don't even try.

This. I tell my oldest all the time, it's okay if you're naturally quiet and kinda a nerd. You have got to get to the gym though. A six pack will go a long way in finding a mate. That and he really doesn't love video games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

Wars cull excess men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

Women live in fear of rape and murder every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

I do think a lot of women have gotten very, very comfortable because we have not faced any real danger for a very, very long time.

All of these feminist ideals go out of the window when stuff really hits the fan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

Wars cull excess men.

And create unwanted babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

Women live in fear of rape and murder every day.

That's because they're neurotic, not because they're I'm danger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

Women live in fear of rape and murder every day.

The fear becomes very well-founded in a war zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

I do think a lot of women have gotten very, very comfortable because we have not faced any real danger for a very, very long time.

All of these feminist ideals go out of the window when stuff really hits the fan.

It's not just women. A lot of us take a whole lot for granted. If a big war comes along, we'll dream of the days when we thought that depression, loneliness, and fear of being thought of as a creep were real problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

I do think a lot of women have gotten very, very comfortable because we have not faced any real danger for a very, very long time.

All of these feminist ideals go out of the window when stuff really hits the fan.

It's not just women. A lot of us take a whole lot for granted. If a big war comes along, we'll dream of the days when we thought that depression, loneliness, and fear of being thought of as a creep were real problems.

We are animals, just like other animals, and the " diseases of domestication" are just as real and harmful as for other animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

I do think a lot of women have gotten very, very comfortable because we have not faced any real danger for a very, very long time.

All of these feminist ideals go out of the window when stuff really hits the fan.

It's not just women. A lot of us take a whole lot for granted. If a big war comes along, we'll dream of the days when we thought that depression, loneliness, and fear of being thought of as a creep were real problems.

Fair point. Well said.