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

The data are clear: The boys are not all right

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#61

Post by thrway99 »

My observation is that we are going to have a radical rebalancing of who reproduces and who doesn’t.

Lot of men and women who are generally not too motivated to seek out a companion, lose weight, put in the work to make it happen just…won’t pass on genetics.

Children are a lot of work and energy.

I’m highly introverted and high earning. My wife was the aggressor in my case. She pretty much made it all happen.

I think the ball is firmly in the woman’s court now. Women have most of the advantages (education, societal promotion, fit in better with our institutions) yet i see so many women who are generally apathetic about getting into a relationship at all.

There is also a massive obesity problem. If people have trouble getting attracted to each other versus the alternatives, makes it really challenging to find the motivation.

I wonder what all these effects will have over the next 200 years? If you play out the changing “relationship market conditions,” it seems like men and women with different personalities and dispositions towards seeking out relationships in order to reproduce will have a significant effect on the species.

Will people who were genetically predisposed towards being thin, hard working, open minded to approaching members of opposite sex and forming deep attachments resulting in children become more frequent?

On a genetic and evolutionary perspective I’m super interested - we know that IQ has been rising, but what else will change?

In some societies such as Korea I am told, women are sometimes or more frequently the aggressor. I wonder if this becomes more common.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#62

Post by philipkglass »

ramesh31 wrote: post #27

Men's comparative advantage, throughout human history, has always been their physical strength. It was the one thing a man could count on to provide value to society. That is no longer the case in our modern economy. You need intelligence, emotional intellect, and analytical skills. All of which men and women are on an equal footing at. So when you remove the ability to generate a viable income through physical labor…

I agreed with this until the last sentence. If men and women are on an equal footing, why are a good portion of men left without anything useful to contribute? I suppose this could hinge on the definition of "good portion." I personally don't think that a "good portion" of prime working age men or women are left without anything economically useful to contribute. American unemployment is currently low, hiring is up, wages are rising, and the coming AI revolution where robots do every job now appears more distant to me than it did 10 years ago.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#63

Post by idealmedtech »

Spooky23 wrote: post #26

Of course. We treat females like they are a marginalized minority. My son’s school has a “Girls Can Code” program. All collateral features women and girls. (Boys are welcome though) I worked at a place where a C-level executive hosted company endorsed dinners at her home for female managers to mentor them for executive roles. If I setup a boys club for computers at school or hosted a men’s IT society at work, that wo…

I believe it's reactionary attitudes like these (why can't we have a special club?) that make tech so hostile to women in the first place. If they feel better in a space that specifically caters to women, and if by them feeling better, they actually learn the skills, why should they not have those spaces?

These are not mutually exclusive things!

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#64

Post by uejfiweun »

Probably unpopular opinion: men having it tough is actually a good thing for men, if you make the most of it. Yes, in modern times as a man, you pretty much don't have any programs specifically designed to benefit you. And yes, men get shat on by pretty much every corner of society. But it's still possible to succeed in these conditions, and some people most definitely do. And those who were able to find their way and make it in a very unfriendly system tend to be extremely competent, not just intellectually but socially and emotionally as well. It's that old saying - "hard times make strong men," yada yada. Having just gone through the whole school process, I am very confident in my ability to solve a problem / achieve a goal on my own, and I don't need some special program or exception to the rules in order to succeed.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#66

Post by zapataband1 »

fdgsdfogijq wrote: post #3

I think the root cause is that society no longer needs "beta" males. Or rather, men in the middle of the distribution. This here is a symptom of that broad effect in society. Technical leverage, automation, premium on intelligence in the workplace, and technology more broadly are pushing out average men.

Hyper-concentration of wealth means no upward mobility so it's no surprise America is having this crisis. Turns out in capitalism if the goal is to hoard the most resources, once you're winning the game it's no longer profitable to educate the masses, better off to leave them poor and dying in wars that make even more money. Can you imagine a library or a modern public computer lab being built in cities? We make kids go into debt for food at school.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#67

Post by klodolph »

awinter-py wrote: post #32

great book on this topic is friedan's feminine mystique (1963). She wrote about the spiritual crisis affecting a generation of young women who were more likely to be 'homemakers' than their mothers. worth reading at least the intro IMO for anyone who feels dissatisfied with their work / life / contribution not sure how yang made this his topic. my sense of his random walk is 'had a job at yahoo' -> future of work ->…

> great book on this topic is friedan's feminine mystique (1963)

Another is “The Will To Love: Men, Masculinity, and Change” by bell hooks (2004)

There aren’t a lot of authors that I feel get it right about issues relating to men and masculinity. Bell hooks is one of the few.

> not sure how yang made this his topic. my sense of his random walk is 'had a job at yahoo' -> future of work -> UBI -> numbers guy -> times square -> ?

I live in NYC and spend a lot of time online, so we got kinda saturated with Yang during the last year because he was in the mayoral race. As far as I can tell, he’s a passionate self-promoter, and engages on a shallow level with tons of different topics as some kind of cynical way to promote his brand. If he were at least more skilled at it I would respect him more, but he’s made so many obvious PR blunders and it’s obvious he doesn’t listen to advisors. He pokes around at sensitive topics like race and sexism, but as far as I can tell it’s so he can stay in the news, because he rarely has anything interesting to say on those subjects.

It seems like a random walk because he’s doing whatever will get him in the news online.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#68

Post by UncleMeat »

bmj wrote: post #35
johncessna wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More U.S. men ages 18 to 34 are now living with their parents than with romantic partners. and > Research shows that one significant factor women look for in a partner is a steady job. As men’s unemployment rises, their romantic prospects decline. Unsurprisingly, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from 1960 to 2010, the proportion of adults without a college degree who marry plummeted from just ove…

As the father of 18 year old who is not going to college and instead working as a carpenter, I don't think lumping 18 year olds with 25+ year olds makes much sense. Perhaps I have an antiquated view of family, but I don't feel his "independence" has everything to do with where he lives. I'm more than happy to have him around the house if it allows him to save money and live a better life at, say, 21.

Further, I think it is largely undesirable for people in their late teens or early 20s to be living with romantic partners. Breakups are way more complicated when you also lose your housing.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#69

Post by peterangular »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #50
commandlinefan wrote: post #29

> As men’s unemployment rises, their romantic prospects decline. Conversely: as young men's potential future employability rises, their romantic prospects also decline. That is - the men who'll grow up to be stable and reliable have lonely teenage years.

Interesting. I'm just one person, but: I've enjoyed stable employment as a programmer since I was 23, and my teenage years and early 20s were easily my most socially (and romantically) active, and I rarely felt lonely then. I've felt most lonely in my late 20s and early 30s. I sometimes wonder if my career destroyed my ability to make and keep friends.

Yeah anecdotally same experience.

Social groups just dry up when you get to your late 20's as people are marrying off, having kids, and only maintaining the utmost of friendships. I know it's brutal but it's a time thing... significant others and families take lots of time if you're doing it right so socializing time becomes of higher value/expense.

It was way easier to meet people when I was younger - not just romantic partners. Social groups were much more cohesive and much less based around couple activity. People were just down for whatever and would jump at something just for the experience. I had tons of friends I could just call/SMS like "hey I'm bored let's go find a show" whereas I would feel inappropriate doing this as an adult.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#70

Post by NylaTheWolf »

Spooky23 wrote: post #26

Of course. We treat females like they are a marginalized minority. My son’s school has a “Girls Can Code” program. All collateral features women and girls. (Boys are welcome though) I worked at a place where a C-level executive hosted company endorsed dinners at her home for female managers to mentor them for executive roles. If I setup a boys club for computers at school or hosted a men’s IT society at work, that wo…

The "Girls Who Code" program was created because of the discrimination and bias women face in the tech industry (not to mention other workplaces and areas of life). Also, the existence of woman managers doesn't suddenly mean that sexism doesn't exist in the industry. I'd imagine that many woman managers have faced a lot of prejudice throughout their careers. And there's probably a large amount of women who want to get into technology, but are intimidated by the space and fear potential sexism.

Also, the reason that running a "boys club for computers" or a "men's IT society" wouldn't end well is because men already make up a large portion of the tech space and, like I said, there's a lot of gender bias in the tech world. This comment comes off as you using anecdotal evidence to disprove the marginalization women face.

Post reply on HN