Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

residentcontrarian.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#441

Post by Manuel_D »

Loughla wrote: post #218
cabraca wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the idea of underrepresentation of certain minority groups or genders basically that? we hear that there are only xy % of women in tech or PoC in tech and that the goal is to get for example 50/50% women/men. Isn't this basically a discussion about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. 50%/50% is basically equality of outcome. We can see for example in scandinavia that you get unequal outcomes if you…

I mean, if you just take it at face value, then it could be interpreted that way. I think the problem is that there isn't an easy soundbite that companies can put out to identify how they will impact equality of opportunity, so they take the easy way to seem 'woke' or whatever other adjective you want to put on it, and attack with equality of outcome. I'm not trying to have a 'no true scotsman' sort of thing, but pro…

I've encountered a slightly more nuanced equity position that comes in the form of supporting equal opportunity, but simultaneously claiming that inequitable outcomes are indicative of unequal opportunity. If the goal is to fix inequality and inequity is assumed to be evidence of inequality, then that's just a roundabout way of pursuing equal outcomes.

I'm not saying that this is your position. It's just a position I've encountered with fequency.

Inequity is not evidence of inequality. Evidence of inequality are things like: sending identical resumes save for male vs. female names and measuring the difference in response rate, anonymizing candidates' voices and measuring changes in interview performance, or other tests that see changes in output directly attributable to aspects of the candidate's identity.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#442

Post by 908B64B197 »

mrweasel wrote: post #359
waythro123123 wrote: post #52

My pet theory is that the developed or post-industrialized world is becoming increasingly two-classed. I have had the privilege of having a decent job (being so-called "economically desirable") and decent education and was able to find someone who I think loves me for who I am, for some definition of "I am". That being said, the "incel" problem concerns me. I think the existence of this entire class of individuals sh…

There was an excellent interview in Danish radio with male/couples therapist, his take was really interesting. There are three groups of men, in his view. The lower class, being uneducated and poor, the upper class, being extremely successful. Both of these group have no problem with the changing male roles or feminism, they just ignore it or it doesn't affect them. They just continue as always and it works for them.…

> Both of these group have no problem with the changing male roles or feminism, they just ignore it or it doesn't affect them.

That's also true for a growing number of women, especially above a certain age. They feel completely alienated by the current 'feminist' movement and don't identify with it. Wonder if the younger generation might not do the same.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#443

Post by [deleted] »

usbline wrote: post #330
jnwatson wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are social animals. The size of our brains, ability to use language, are all "nature's" solutions to social problems. That women are deep down attracted to men of status is hard-wired, and the result of thousands of years of natural selection. The nexus among status-seeking behavior, current economic realities, and the changing marketplace of dating, is the primary driver behind "incels". In other words, natur…

>status-seeking behavior not nature >current economic realities not nature >the changing marketplace of dating again, not nature

[deleted]

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#444

Post by rafaelero »

ufmace wrote: post #362
benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

> I think that's the strongest criticism of incels as well; having a romantic and sexual relationship is not a requirement for a happy life. Let me take this in another direction than most of the other comments: Say you're talking to a homosexual person in a deeply homophobic society, one so bad that you risk becoming a pariah at the very notion that you might enjoy relations with someone of the same sex. Would you t…

There is a world of difference between being allowed to love and being guaranteed love.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#445

Post by Balgair »

MattGaiser wrote: post #288
schnevets wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends, and I sincerely believe the problem is the western world's secretly coy perception of sex. There is a superficial surface level that is extremely wrong (for example, Successful people have sex, the most successful people have the hottest sex with the hottest partners; Sex isn't about planning it's about letting the desire overcome…

> I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends I originally thought they were mostly an old people thing, but I am hearing more stories about it from friends. And we are mid 20s.

One thing to note is that birth-control may decrease libido in some women. The science is a bit mixed though.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201902...

As for the male side of things, I'm not sure if there is a environmental culprit like birth-control.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#446

Post by yissp »

thepasswordis wrote: post #67
benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

>This is basically a red flag for any relationship. No it isn't. My grandparents, who were married for 60 years had this mentality. My wife's grandparents, who were married for a similar amount of time, also shared this mentality. My wife's parents still share this mentality (and are obviously completely devoted to one another, which you will notice if you spend about 5 seconds with them). My parents divorced, which…

To add to the other replies, my own grandparents sound similar to yours in that they were happily married for 52 years. But my grandfather passed away 5 years ago, and while I know she still misses him deeply, I don't think my grandmother is in a constant state of misery. She is still able to find happiness in life despite now being alone.

I think that's what the parent was getting at. Being devoted to your partner doesn't mean you need them to enjoy life.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#447

Post by TameAntelope »

iammisc wrote: post #434
TameAntelope wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of this stuff is just fact to you, isn't it? It's hard to engage when some of the things you talk about here seem immutable to you but are not even reasonable points of contention to me. "Pornography leads to hell" if hell were real and if pornography certainly led to eternal condemnation in hell, pornography would be bad, but neither of those "if" statements really lead for much discussion. What was the goal o…

I believe pornography leads to hell, yes. I also believe that, even if you didn't believe that, it would lead to unhappy marriages? You should feel free to argue to me the benefits of pornography, though.

I think entering into an argument knowing you won't change your mind is disingenuous, and I think your argument that pornography leads to unhappy marriages hinges on the idea that pornography leads to hell, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. It's actually the only reason you've given, and then you built your conclusion on top of it.

My point is by bringing religion into the conversation, you ratcheted up the severity to an 11, since the negative consequences of religion tend to be literally the worst thing you can experience for all of eternity. Before it was a tough conversation about sex, and now it's a tough conversation about sex where if you get it wrong, you're doomed to hell.

At a certain point, I'm left to wonder what your intention actually was, and I'm running out of positive options. For example, you created a throwaway, and I'm curious about what I'm supposed to take away from that decision.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#448

Post by textgel »

krastanov wrote: post #432
textgel wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the first google result of "women identifying as feminst" https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/american-women-and-feminism And plenty more for the willing student; however an ideology that considers "men are on average taller and stronger than women" to be a controversial statement might understandably place some difficulty on those in need of finding these things. And funnily enough the definition of a group has no…

Could you spell out how the link you shared says anything about "year on year decrease" or anything about the movement being viewed as "despicable". Especially in the context of your very reference saying that the results depend significantly on how the question is phrased?

Ask yourself if you or other people would be more comfortable identifying as feminists publicly now as opposed to 5/10 years ago; that'll give you answer 1.

As for answer 2, I've shown what basic searches can come up with. "why im not a feminst" might give you what you're looking for.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#449

Post by phkahler »

colanderman wrote: post #154

I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. To think sex can be replaced with "strong friendships" is laughable to anyone who actually feels a strong desire for sex. The dead bedroom situations I've seen with my friends (M->F equally as well as F->M)…

>> I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have.

When I first saw Maslow's hierarchy of needs sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need (to what extent varies of course) and again I think on the 3rd level or so as a form of intimacy.

Putting it on that pyramid has somehow fallen out of favor. One (fem) writer claimed it somehow justified rape. That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery. I suspect the real issue is that it offered an explanation (not a justification) that differs from the authors pre-conceived notions (men are evil blah blah). Anyway it seems to have become unpopular to claim it's a basic need.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#450

Post by scarmig »

jfengel wrote: post #428
scarmig wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is when people conflate "there's no obligation on any woman to listen to you" with "expression of frustration in a public forum is a character flaw worthy of criticism," or when people conflate "blames women for its problems" with "criticizes toxic gender norms enforced on men." Imagine a woman who is frustrated because her partner doesn't do any chores or give any indication he respects her. She complains…

Toxic gender norms hurt both men and women, but we're only willing to consider toxic gender norms that hurt women as a politicized issue. "Patriarchy hurts men" is a feminist slogan. It gets hundreds of thousands of hits on Google. The front page is full of lefty think-pieces saying that we need to consider toxic gender norms hurt men. https://www.google.com/search?q=patriarchy+harms+men The fact that it needs to be…

The issue is that the slogan "patriarchy hurts men" is nearly always used in a way that still puts the onus on men to stop policing gender norms on other men. The reality is that women have every bit as much agency and power in upholding patriarchy that men do, but few women (feminist or not) are willing to acknowledge the extent they enforce toxic gender norms, or even that women enforce toxic gender norms at all.
Post reply on HN