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

211–220 of 446 posts

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#211

Post by Volundr »

monksy wrote: post #199
Volundr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've had one organization call the "confederate flag" a form of racism. Claiming it's not is not the hill I'd choose to die on. Modern display of what most call the "confederate flag" (it isn't) rose to prominence in response to the civil rights movement. It was a perfect example of hiding behind the thinnest veneer of legitimacy while attacking someone. I don't doubt that many in the modern day display it out of i…

> Claiming it's not is not the hill I'd choose to die on. Me either, also I'm for banning all flags in the workplace. But people who vastly generalize large swaths of the population in a negative light in an inaccurate manner is as bad. > Modern display of what most call the "confederate flag" (it isn't) rose to prominence in response to the civil rights movement. Growing up in the south the flag is used as an region…

> Growing up in the south the flag is used as an regional identification and lifestyle pride.

I'm sure plenty of people believe this and it's why they choose to display it. It remains true it's display dramatically increased in response to the civil rights movement. It also remains true that the symbol they have chosen as a symbol of their "regional identification and lifestyle pride" is directly lifted from a group that fought a war of rebellion in order to continue their traditions of racism and slavery. That's a simple historical fact. The flag wasn't "taken over" by a race hate group. It was CREATED by a race hate group. Some may wish to take it back and use it for non-hateful purposes, but that's not an easy thing to do, and they have yet to succeed in divorcing it from it's original meaning.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#212

Post by timeagain »

scarmig wrote: post #209
timeagain wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. My 2c as a gay man that has many women as friends. They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent. And thinking that gaining status is how to gain women is pretty much the opposite of that. Patriarchy hurts both sexes. By thinking of status and power as avenues to sex you stunt your ability to conn…

As a bi man, the dynamics of dating men and women are very different. It ranges from the very explicit (you must plan the date; you must pay for the date) to the comparatively subtle (you must be emotionally stoic and not show too much vulnerability; you must have a stable, well-paying job; you must be "confident"). These things aren't standards you would be subject to in a purely platonic relationship. It's not even…

That’s true I might be biased by hanging with women who hang with gay men. It is also true that women perpetuate these dumb stereotypes of masculinity as well.

The kicker for me is how these dynamics ruin the ability for men and women to become friends. Like you say, these wouldn’t be issues in a platonic relationship. But this cloud of expectation looms over any straight-platonic friendship between men and women. How the relationship would have to change if it became romantic.

Makes me glad I’m gay.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#213

Post by friend_and_foe »

timeagain wrote: post #206
friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

> So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. My 2c as a gay man that has many women as friends. They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent. And thinking that gaining status is how to gain women is pretty much the opposite of that. Patriarchy hurts both sexes. By thinking of status and power as avenues to sex you stunt your ability to conn…

I said nothing "lowly" about women. I happen to have a very rewarding, honest and low stress relationship. It took me years to find anyone that I was willing to give my life to because, frankly, our culture nowadays is one where people want what they want but are willing only to give what they want to. This goes for both men and women. The give and take goes both ways, I self reflected for a long time and determined that I was willing to give of myself, and I expect the same from a partner, and people that have that insight are few and far between.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#214

Post by jiggawatts »

timeagain wrote: post #206
friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

> So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. My 2c as a gay man that has many women as friends. They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent. And thinking that gaining status is how to gain women is pretty much the opposite of that. Patriarchy hurts both sexes. By thinking of status and power as avenues to sex you stunt your ability to conn…

> They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent.

That’s what they say, and that’s what women’s magazines have told them. Reality is the opposite, and has been demonstrated over and over both a scientifically and informally.

Or to put it another way: the reason even the hottest 1% of women complain about men’s poor EQ is because they’re not optimising for it when choosing a partner. They’re partnering with the matching top 1% of men based on social status and wealth, and every attribute unimportant to women has a random value. That’s why even attractive women with their pick of partners will complain about men’s EQ. They don’t care enough to choose a man with high EQ, but they care just enough to complain about it.

It’s like someone buying a Tesla and then bitching about minor quibbles. If they cared about those issues they would have bought a Toyota.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#215

Post by dahwolf »

This problem seems statistically unsolvable unless people make vast behavioral changes.

The education gap will not be closed, it might even grow further apart. A significant amount of men will continue to work in blue collar jobs and thus will never meet the standards of being highly educated and/or wealthy. There's exceptions, some are making a killing, but on average not really. To make matters worse, there's a growing political gap between blue collar men and white collar women.

Another portion of "lost" men are described in the article as the unemployed gamers. A portion of them might be incels. The main thing to understand about this group is that even if they do better themselves, it's still not going to be a match. Because quite likely they're socially awkward and physically unattractive, struggle to socialize and make friends.

Bottom line, the popular phrase "men should step up" isn't going to work out. You're waiting for something that simply isn't going to happen. You can make of that situation what you want: opt-out and don't compromise on your standards, or deal with the cards given.

My advise: look for character in a person. The obsession with status, education and wealth is inhumane, superficial and greatly self-limiting. Character lasts. If a person is structurally kind, responsible, reliable and has a steady job, who gives a shit about anything else? Combined with your own "educated" income, it would be plenty to run a family. Why price yourself out of the market with steep financial demands? For additional luxury? A bigger house? One you never attend as you're always at work? Get real.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#216

Post by scarmig »

timeagain wrote: post #212
scarmig wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bi man, the dynamics of dating men and women are very different. It ranges from the very explicit (you must plan the date; you must pay for the date) to the comparatively subtle (you must be emotionally stoic and not show too much vulnerability; you must have a stable, well-paying job; you must be "confident"). These things aren't standards you would be subject to in a purely platonic relationship. It's not even…

That’s true I might be biased by hanging with women who hang with gay men. It is also true that women perpetuate these dumb stereotypes of masculinity as well. The kicker for me is how these dynamics ruin the ability for men and women to become friends. Like you say, these wouldn’t be issues in a platonic relationship. But this cloud of expectation looms over any straight-platonic friendship between men and women. Ho…

Straight folk have lots to learn from gay folk. Probably starting with how to do marriage right[0].

[0] https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/2/13/study-gay-people-h...

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#217

Post by friend_and_foe »

hfhdjdks wrote: post #208
friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

I take it that your expectation is that a woman takes more care of the house?

Not really, my expectation is more general. I expect a give and a take, a natural process of finding roles, I expect a partner to do what it takes to keep a household going, you know, a partnership. I expect two people to find their strengths and act accordingly for the benefit of the family. What I think is too common is that any mention of housework has a stigma attached to it for women now and what you wind up with is a situation where men have to fit the gender role of being a successful breadwinner and still do their own laundry. This is not a give and take, and this is unappealing to most men. I personally don't care what the distribution of responsibilities is, so long as it's according to each person's strengths and is for the benefit of the household with no consideration of external social expectation. I happen to have a relationship like this, and I still do laundry when I need to. It's great.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#218

Post by dahwolf »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

You're right, it's a play on the meme: "man dead, woman most affected".

Popular culture has become structurally anti-male. The ease at which we're described as simplistic, violent, sexual addicts doesn't seem to surprise anyone anymore.

This article almost makes a humanitarian problem out of a luxury problem: highly educated women unable to find somebody even richer than them.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#219

Post by almostnormal »

> A study led by economics researcher Brecht Neyt of Ghent University found that, on Tinder, women were 91 percent more likely to “like” a man with a master's degree compared with a bachelor's degree. The researchers used the same male profiles, the only difference was level of education.

No ethics board in the economics department?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#220

Post by chrisco255 »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

There's also no fault attributed to modern university culture. Is there something about the way they teach that alienates men? Perhaps it's just a reflection of the job market and the fact that a university education doesn't buy much these days.
Post reply on HN