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

Dating, education, and sex ratios

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 446 posts

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#181

Post by bruceb »

thowaway6060 wrote: post #43

I mean the research is nice, but I don't think that just a degree is going to up your chances. As someone who is using these apps constantly, I don't have any hope of finding a long term partner on there. I am on pretty much every app, except Tinder (Bumble, Hinge, okcupid, pof and even muzmatch (im south asian)). I have a bachelors, and I make good money. I've been told that I am a decent looking guy and I have quit…

As I mention every time dating comes up on HN, often men on HN live in areas that skew male. SV, Seattle, Bangalore, etc. If you live in say, San Jose, there are 130 men for every 100 women. It not necessarily that apps don't work just the marketplace is not in balance in those cities. On the other hand a not insignificant portion of men send the dumbest msgs. Not that hard to write something better.

Also some women might say that are not looking for something serious when they really mean just not interested in long term with the person asking. Sadly, men murder women, so women have to be careful about letting men down.

Plenty of people have met their spouse on dating apps, so the idea "if you are looking for a serious relationship - there's just no way you are going to find it on here." just isn't accurate.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#182

Post by Animats »

monksy wrote: post #169
visihuge wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these kinds of articles are always seem to be slanted in how it negatively affects women. Women desiring more successful partners, yet men aren't keeping up. I'd be interested if there was any good article broaching that subject more, instead of remarkably pithy answers like "it's those damn video games."

People are afraid to be direct and call the article/researchers sexist in their framing of the situation.

This could be framed as female incels insisting they have a right to a man who will support them.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#183

Post by magicalist »

monksy wrote: post #167
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In either case, it feels a little overly dramatic to worry too much about a scenario where HR asks you to not use a word anymore. Is this what people mean when they worry about people being cancelled?

Is it overly dramatic to have HR dictate formally non-offensive speach? (I'm talking about non-derogatory and non-slur based language) Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language" ( https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/ ) If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that.

> Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language"

There's absolutely nothing on that page to indicate they're upset about violent language

> If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that.

There's even less indication of that.

If the goal is for fewer people to overreact, why are we inventing boogeymen to overreact about?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#184

Post by monksy »

somebody78978 wrote: post #88
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like this is actually researched. It would be better to first look at the research before comparing anecdotal hypotheses. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/08/whats-beh... > Men are more likely than women to point to factors that have more to do with personal choice. Roughly a third (34%) of men without a bachelor’s degree say a major reason they didn’t complete college is that they just didn’t wa…

Well, maybe the reason why those men didn't want to complete college is because they don't have the same support that women do (or at least, that's what they percieve).

Another strong reason is that the work they're willing to take doesn't require a college deplomia. (On top of that a university degree not demonstrating the value to the struggle it took to get it)

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#185

Post by Volundr »

monksy wrote: post #167
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In either case, it feels a little overly dramatic to worry too much about a scenario where HR asks you to not use a word anymore. Is this what people mean when they worry about people being cancelled?

Is it overly dramatic to have HR dictate formally non-offensive speach? (I'm talking about non-derogatory and non-slur based language) Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language" ( https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/ ) If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that.

> Is it overly dramatic to have HR dictate formally non-offensive speach? (I'm talking about non-derogatory and non-slur based language)

Your question is phrased in such a way that I honestly can't figure out how to answer it, but non-derogatory and non-slur based does not mean non-offensive and never has. As I previously mentioned people are plenty creative at hiding insults in "respectful" words.

See also: the many nuances of "bless your heart"

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#186

Post by scarmig »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #164
scarmig wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most traits, I think men have a higher variance in focus on long-term planning than women do. Men are disproportionately both people who don't plan for the next paycheck and FIRE-enthusiasts. If you look at FIRE-oriented online groups, men significantly outnumber women. I think that's what the parent is referring to. And there are fewer women (relative to men) who are willing to take a significant drop in consum…

Women who do this have told me it can sometimes be about 'trying to live life before it is too late'.

Sure. But I'd argue that's an overly narrow view of trying to live life: living life is about being present in shared experiences with your friends and loved ones, not status-focused consumption. Otherwise non-rich people would be doomed to misery, which isn't the case.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#187

Post by ryanwaggoner »

keiferski wrote: post #52

I read a book awhile ago called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? , which basically argues that cultures which strongly promote traditional values, having children, etc. will evolutionarily outcompete groups that don’t. It made me think that there must be a kind of cycle in human societies, where certain social values (like the ones mentioned in the article) are able to become popular for a short period of time…

I think fundamentalism is too brittle to persist like that over the long term.

Yes, the most conservative religions usually have a lot of kids, but over the generations, many of those kids will leave the religion, or at least join a less fundamentalist strain and have fewer kids. Unless the culture is kept strictly separate (increasingly impossible), the quality of life that the surrounding secular culture offers is too alluring. So standards are relaxed, women get educated and start working, have fewer kids. And it ripples down the generations. It hasn't happened yet in some of the less developed parts of the world, but as they get richer, it will. It always does.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#188

Post by grepLeigh »

rngname22 wrote: post #64

Conversations about high income as a factor in attracting women often seem to neglect to mention that it's not enough to have a high income if you don't use it to signal wealth or to provide luxury experiences to women. Telling women you want to put your high income to work in enabling you to retire early but live a modest life and use that freedom to pursue creative pursuits doesn't have the same effect as taking th…

I'm not trying to poke the bear by saying this, but I wonder if you'd still believe this after speaking to 100 women from different cities, backgrounds, and walks of life. Women aren't a monoculture.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#189

Post by akomtu »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #92
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #12

What I find interesting and I am curious if these conversations can happen anymore. I no longer discuss anything related to gender, relationships, or personal life dynamics with anyone outside of my bubble. I would enjoy the conversation, learning about another's ideas and understanding although despite assurances of maturity and openness conversation ends due to their inflammatory pronouncements. I do not believe id…

I also avoid these types of conversations for the same reason. Even with people I know and have friendships with, I tend to be very cautious when approaching those topics. There's definitely a sense of "walking on eggshells", especially with the younger or more progressive crowd (note: I'm mostly progressive as well). I am nearly 40 and living in the West Coast of the US, so that may play a part.

What does it mean to be progressive w.r.t. dating these days?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#190

Post by dnissley »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #166
dnissley wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a common thread here? Can you imagine what might prompt such a response? What tends to prompt such responses in my experience is saying anything along the lines of "In my experience, I've noticed there is a tendency for (insert gender) to..." Actually, in hindsight, the inflammatory responses mostly only happen when the inserted gender is women.

I'm sometimes the one firing off the "inflammatory response", and it's usually in a group of men where someone says something blatantly misogynistic, not just stereotypical.

Is your response coming from a kind of guttural, purely emotional place of having your values trampled on? Or is it meant to serve a purpose?

In these situations my default is to just observe as dispassionately as possible. If I'm in a cheeky mood maybe I'll troll a bit or try to find a humorous way to point out how the shoe could be on the other foot. And sometimes, although very rarely, the mood is just right that I feel safe enough to be earnest.

If I got all up in arms every time someone says something misogynistic or misandrist, I think I would end up being a very lonely person. I've seen a lot of these people. They either end up brainwashed on one end of the gender war spectrum (and usually just so angry and spiteful -- this is the polarized archetype), or get cast out of all possible ingroups if they make the mistake of attempting to be too consistent with their criticism (nerdy and socially unaware archetype).

Post reply on HN