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

How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#31

Post by King-Aaron »

hanging wrote: post #25
perfmode wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve simply come to believe that online dating is the safest way for people to evaluate partners. There is demonstrated intent on both ends. It’s like google’s search intent being the value. Online dating provides safety through... intent of intimacy I guess

Online dating sites unfortunately have become a convenient fraud vector.

All I ever find with dating sites is an endless stream of bots and constant 'seen'/'deleted' receipts.

My feeling is I don't have enough "marketable" photos of myself to make the few real users out there take notice among the endless stream of spam they must get.

I end up feeling that the psychological impact from 'playing that game' results in diminishing returns, so fall back to just doing my usual hobbies in the real world and hope in the back of my mind that one day someone might find the things that I do interesting.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#32

Post by belorn »

hobofan wrote: post #30
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what causes the extra risk-taking by men, though? Male reproductive success is heavily tied to being able to successfully acquire economic and sociopolitical resources. It could easily be argued that women are "responsible" for this via setting up the incentive structure that men responded to in the ancestral environment.

> And what causes the extra risk-taking by men, though? Probably Testostorone > Male reproductive success is heavily tied to being able to successfully acquire economic and sociopolitical resources. That has only been true for something between a few thousand years to maybe a hundred years (when true upwards mobility was established). So as much as I like to think that humans can overcome their inner animals, it can'…

> Probably Testostorone

No. When accounted for gender Testostorone do not have a correlation to risk taking for men.

> traditional evolution

One of the research findings among primatologists about 50-70 years ago is that female choice has a significant impact. That "little/limited say in their choice of reproductive partners" is actually not that little or limited, but simply different compare to male primates. The research on prehistorical human behavior is also extreme speculative, so great caution to attribute anything specific down to it.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#33

Post by hobofan »

belorn wrote: post #32
hobofan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what causes the extra risk-taking by men, though? Probably Testostorone > Male reproductive success is heavily tied to being able to successfully acquire economic and sociopolitical resources. That has only been true for something between a few thousand years to maybe a hundred years (when true upwards mobility was established). So as much as I like to think that humans can overcome their inner animals, it can'…

> Probably Testostorone No. When accounted for gender Testostorone do not have a correlation to risk taking for men. > traditional evolution One of the research findings among primatologists about 50-70 years ago is that female choice has a significant impact. That "little/limited say in their choice of reproductive partners" is actually not that little or limited, but simply different compare to male primates. The r…

How are arranged marriages (as they still exist now) not "limited choice"?

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#34

Post by belorn »

hobofan wrote: post #33
belorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Probably Testostorone No. When accounted for gender Testostorone do not have a correlation to risk taking for men. > traditional evolution One of the research findings among primatologists about 50-70 years ago is that female choice has a significant impact. That "little/limited say in their choice of reproductive partners" is actually not that little or limited, but simply different compare to male primates. The r…

How are arranged marriages (as they still exist now) not "limited choice"?

What are you talking about? Baboons, macaques, gibbons, great apes, capuchins, howlers, or squirrel monkey do not conduct arranged marriages, nor marriages at all for that matter. Looking at evolution and how it formed us and we find very little of arranged marriages.

Arranged marriages also limits men and women equally (the definition is the bride and groom are selected by individuals other than the couple themselves) so I am not sure what argument you are trying to make in the first place.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#35

Post by busterarm »

belorn wrote: post #34
hobofan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are arranged marriages (as they still exist now) not "limited choice"?

What are you talking about? Baboons, macaques, gibbons, great apes, capuchins, howlers, or squirrel monkey do not conduct arranged marriages, nor marriages at all for that matter. Looking at evolution and how it formed us and we find very little of arranged marriages. Arranged marriages also limits men and women equally (the definition is the bride and groom are selected by individuals other than the couple themselve…

Just to pile on with what you said to the parent...

For most of the thousands of years we've had something like marriage, it was a privilege of the upper class anyway. Marriage served as a means to preserve political power.

If you don't have any political power, you weren't getting married.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#36

Post by hobofan »

belorn wrote: post #34
hobofan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are arranged marriages (as they still exist now) not "limited choice"?

What are you talking about? Baboons, macaques, gibbons, great apes, capuchins, howlers, or squirrel monkey do not conduct arranged marriages, nor marriages at all for that matter. Looking at evolution and how it formed us and we find very little of arranged marriages. Arranged marriages also limits men and women equally (the definition is the bride and groom are selected by individuals other than the couple themselve…

> It could easily be argued that women are "responsible" for this via setting up the incentive structure that men responded to in the ancestral environment.

I was saying that this argument by ThrustVectoring doesn't hold true, as neither men nor women (at least not the bride or the groom) made the partner choices themselves.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#37

Post by krapp »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #24

>>This is not a defence of sexual assault, nor men’s rights activism. There is nothing wrong with men's rights activism.

>There is nothing wrong with men's rights activism.

In the abstract, no... but in practice, men's rights activism is so wrapped up in anti-feminist conspiracy theory and incel misogyny that it does harm both to women and men.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#38

Post by krapp »

MRD85 wrote: post #27
zozbot123 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that "how assertive should I be" is the wrong question to ask-- there are many ways of being "assertive", only some of which work well! As a society, we are still in the process of developing-- and raising awareness about-- workable and effective sexual/dating "scripts" that men can stick to, and trust that they won't run into obvious problems. As the article hopefully makes clear, even the outwardly-trivia…

If we develop a set of working scripts to indicate availability, then women will still go for men who are "bold" enough to deviate from the script and seize the day. It's a complex issue, and it's my belief that the traits that women find attractive in men and the traits that women would like to find attractive in men are two different sets with less overlap than you'd imagine.

>If we develop a set of working scripts to indicate availability, then women will still go for men who are "bold" enough to deviate from the script and seize the day.

Some will, some won't, some will in some circumstances and won't in others. Women aren't actors playing roles to deceive men or buggy data sets for which a properly efficient sexual algorithm has to be discovered, they're just human beings and you just need to deal with them as individuals, get to know them as people, and communicate with them. And accept that if they don't find you attractive, or don't want to sleep with you, that's fine.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#39

Post by krapp »

qvh wrote: post #11

I know my comment will be deemed unsubstantive but I have to say: as a man I felt identified in that text, all women I've been with were like that. That's why the idea of consent feels so alien to me: it goes against my very experience with the (different) women I've been with.

>That's why the idea of consent feels so alien to me: it goes against my very experience with the (different) women I've been with.

Presumably, the women you've been with have provided you with consent, or else you've been incapable of realizing when they haven't. But 'consent' exists as an abstract principle not linked to gender, it's merely the capacity of an individual to have agency and ownership of themselves, so your particular sexual experiences should have no bearing on your comprehension of the term or its implications for future relationships.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#40

Post by spricket »

magrimu wrote: post #29
roenxi wrote: post #4

Maybe we've redefined what patriarchy means, but going by the dictionary this article, and the associated viewpoint, is clearly reversing the cause and effect. In context of broad society patriarchy is "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power". It is obvious that, given there are a small number of leadership roles, if one gender is more assertive, aggressive or violent (or indeed prone to risk tak…

> Patriarchy doesn't cause male behavior, male behavior causes patriarchy. There doesn't have to be a behavioral difference between men and women for societies to trend towards patriarchy. The simple fact that women bear children and are pregnant for nine months is enough to have limited their political prospects in pre-modern times. A society of antiquity that allows women to fight in battle will have fewer women to…

I think it's deeper than that. Men are more assertive as well as many women preferring it that way. The easiest place to see it is online dating apps, a system that has only existed for a decade or so. Size, strength, and status symbols (like having a nice car in your picture) are big selection factors for profiles of men seeking women. But these factors hardly matter for women seeking men. This clearly influences males to seek positions of status and power moreso than females, even though they're equally capable.

I would argue that eventually this small selection bias causes generic personality bias toward more assertive traits, larger size, and aggressiveness in males. In humans and many ape species this selection runaway has gone so far I doubt we can do anything about it.

It would be interesting if we could find a closely related species where the females are larger and more dominant. Human "dominant male" sexual dimorphism isn't the norm across the animal kingdom but is very common in apes.

Anecdotal, but I've heard MANY women say "I wish I had a male boss", but I've never heard the opposite from either male or female friends. Could this be related to similar selection factors? Who knows, but researching this kind of stuff is nearly radioactive to your career so we may never know.

Post reply on HN