Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you actually read the article, it stated that women want men who are emotionally available and empathetic. They are tired of carrying the entire responsibility for the emotional burden of the relationship/family. And they want men who are AS educated and successful as they are, or at least not a loser.

Look - women maybe don't always say they want the things out of men that would make the woman look shallow. I'm sure she does want a guy who is emotionally available and empathetic. But she also probably wants a guy who is good looking, has decent muscles, good hair, and maybe a certain height. She might also want a guy who makes decent money. Looks and financial prospects might even be more of a first-order filter than the empathy -- she'll go out with a guy who's good looking but not empathetic before going out with a guy who is empathetic but ugly.

okay but that's not what the article says. women are dating each other or nobody versus some neanderthal. There isn't the same economic pressure for women to worry about being an old maid anymore. Why do studies consistently show that single women are the happiest and married women are the least happy?

Men need to up their game--but I am in favor of helping them get the skills they need.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you actually read the article, it stated that women want men who are emotionally available and empathetic. They are tired of carrying the entire responsibility for the emotional burden of the relationship/family. And they want men who are AS educated and successful as they are, or at least not a loser.

Look - women maybe don't always say they want the things out of men that would make the woman look shallow. I'm sure she does want a guy who is emotionally available and empathetic. But she also probably wants a guy who is good looking, has decent muscles, good hair, and maybe a certain height. She might also want a guy who makes decent money. Looks and financial prospects might even be more of a first-order filter than the empathy -- she'll go out with a guy who's good looking but not empathetic before going out with a guy who is empathetic but ugly.

okay but that's not what the article says. women are dating each other or nobody versus some neanderthal. There isn't the same economic pressure for women to worry about being an old maid anymore. Why do studies consistently show that single women are the happiest and married women are the least happy?

Men need to up their game--but I am in favor of helping them get the skills they need.

The article and its failed math are clickbait garbage.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you actually read the article, it stated that women want men who are emotionally available and empathetic. They are tired of carrying the entire responsibility for the emotional burden of the relationship/family. And they want men who are AS educated and successful as they are, or at least not a loser.

Look - women maybe don't always say they want the things out of men that would make the woman look shallow. I'm sure she does want a guy who is emotionally available and empathetic. But she also probably wants a guy who is good looking, has decent muscles, good hair, and maybe a certain height. She might also want a guy who makes decent money. Looks and financial prospects might even be more of a first-order filter than the empathy -- she'll go out with a guy who's good looking but not empathetic before going out with a guy who is empathetic but ugly.

okay but that's not what the article says. women are dating each other or nobody versus some neanderthal. There isn't the same economic pressure for women to worry about being an old maid anymore. Why do studies consistently show that single women are the happiest and married women are the least happy?

Men need to up their game--but I am in favor of helping them get the skills they need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach your boys to interact with girls. Teach your boys to interact with one another in the real world and not only online. Far too many young men's only interaction with other people is through screens. Men aren't encouraged to have friends with other men. Men are socially isolated and incompetent.

Because they've been completely neutered by calling every single thing they do "toxic" or "creepy".

But yes, instead of calming down on that hysteria a bit, let's situate the locus of all blame on them.

Right, blame it on being called toxic or creepy and not on their crappy male socialization. It's really not that hard for men to find a girlfriend or a job if they have some self esteem and motivation.

Anonymous wrote:https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/

Most young men are single and a large number have no friends. There's a disconnected crisis, it's been going on for years, and the pandemic made it much worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you actually read the article, it stated that women want men who are emotionally available and empathetic. They are tired of carrying the entire responsibility for the emotional burden of the relationship/family. And they want men who are AS educated and successful as they are, or at least not a loser.

Look - women maybe don't always say they want the things out of men that would make the woman look shallow. I'm sure she does want a guy who is emotionally available and empathetic. But she also probably wants a guy who is good looking, has decent muscles, good hair, and maybe a certain height. She might also want a guy who makes decent money. Looks and financial prospects might even be more of a first-order filter than the empathy -- she'll go out with a guy who's good looking but not empathetic before going out with a guy who is empathetic but ugly.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Screens are absolutely part of the problem. The happiest teens are the ones who participate in in-person activities, not just lie in bed all night texting their friends. Some parents like the fact that their kids are staying home more and not always out with friends, but a huge part of maturation is socializing and learning appropriate in-person behavior and norms, as well as separating from parents and becoming independent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach your boys to interact with girls. Teach your boys to interact with one another in the real world and not only online. Far too many young men's only interaction with other people is through screens. Men aren't encouraged to have friends with other men. Men are socially isolated and incompetent.

I wouldn't focus so much on the online and screens issue. That stinks of "kids these days and their rock & roll music." But the rest is completely accurate - teach boys how to interact with one another and with girls, encourage them to have friends with other men and with women. Facilitate spaces where low key, non-anonymous interactions are common. (I think the main problem with the online/screen interaction has more to do with the anonymity and less to do with the medium itself.)

Anonymous wrote:
If you actually read the article, it stated that women want men who are emotionally available and empathetic. They are tired of carrying the entire responsibility for the emotional burden of the relationship/family. And they want men who are AS educated and successful as they are, or at least not a loser.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach your boys to interact with girls. Teach your boys to interact with one another in the real world and not only online. Far too many young men's only interaction with other people is through screens. Men aren't encouraged to have friends with other men. Men are socially isolated and incompetent.

Because they've been completely neutered by calling every single thing they do "toxic" or "creepy".

But yes, instead of calming down on that hysteria a bit, let's situate the locus of all blame on them.

Maybe don’t push back when women say XYZ behavior makes them uncomfortable. Maybe don’t laugh it off when Tiger Woods hands his buddy a tampon to tell him how inferior he is. Honestly, why would we insist on promoting behavior that women find repellent and then complain that the women won’t date them? You can rant about how society is changing for the worse but you can’t try to relegate women back to second class status and have them embrace it.

+1
You know how men can find a woman? Don't be a massive jerk. Don't be a misogynist. Don't act like women owe them anything. Be receptive to her feelings and needs without always bulldozing over them. Flirt a little. Stop being to shy to interact at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What is your solution?

I am not the poster to whom you are responding. Not sure what the solution is. Maybe a start would be more support for boys in the early years? Aside from sports, encourage activities that require more social interactions like drama, home economics, the arts. We encourage both boys to do all sorts of activities that would allow for more social interaction. The truth is that when they are in a non-athletic activity, they struggle so much more to be accepted into the group since most girls seem to want to partner with other girls in group activities.

Boys need good role models for them with more mentorship programs.

The bolded is actually not a bad idea. My son got social benefits from being in the school band that's hard for me to overstate. Lots of friends, both boys and girls. It's no accident that his long-term girlfriend is someone he met in the band.