Most young men are single - most young women are not

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

The problems facing men should not be blamed on women, which seems to be a lot of the subtext of this discussion these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problems facing men should not be blamed on women, which seems to be a lot of the subtext of this discussion these days.

+1 stop blaming women for what men lack. Women no longer have to be mommies to the men.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single motherhood has exploded.

This is...not a good thing.

It’s great. Women are tired of men not being good partners who actually help out around the house.

Yikes...have you seen the outcomes for kids that come from single mother households? They're horrible. Even worse than kids from single father households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problems facing men should not be blamed on women, which seems to be a lot of the subtext of this discussion these days.

Oh, the irony...

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Wait, why wouldn’t we adjust society like we did for every other disadvantaged group?

[Anonymous]

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.

Wait, why wouldn’t we adjust society like we did for every other disadvantaged group?

If if favors women, it's mens fault and they individually need to improve. If it favors men, it is men's fault and they/society need to improve.

The common refrain is men need to adjust to placate women.

[Anonymous]

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.

Wait, why wouldn’t we adjust society like we did for every other disadvantaged group?

If if favors women, it's mens fault and they individually need to improve. If it favors men, it is men's fault and they/society need to improve.

The common refrain is men need to adjust to placate women.

But we are not talking about tangible metrics like hiring or school admissions. We are talking about DATING and marriage. Do you want to force women to date and marry men that they're not attracted to?

[Anonymous]

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.

Wait, why wouldn’t we adjust society like we did for every other disadvantaged group?

If if favors women, it's mens fault and they individually need to improve. If it favors men, it is men's fault and they/society need to improve.

The common refrain is men need to adjust to placate women.

But we are not talking about tangible metrics like hiring or school admissions. We are talking about DATING and marriage. Do you want to force women to date and marry men that they're not attracted to?

Those tangible metrics show a clear pattern towards society abandoning men to languish in isolation. These policies and associated hateful rhetoric ultimately create an underclass of isolated males.

[Anonymous]

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.

What’s your solution?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

You can sneer at the quality of young men, and you can say it's their own damn fault for being unf**ckable losers that don't deserve love. You could even do those things with some justification.

But when they increasingly make the world a violent sh*tshow, none of us is going to be happy, and it's not going to make a huge difference who was right or wrong.

[Anonymous]

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?