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

321–330 of 446 posts

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#321

Post by hayst4ck »

ativzzz wrote: post #316
hayst4ck wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Luckily we as humans can choose to agree with certain aspects of an ideology while disagreeing with other aspects of it

Indeed, that's why it's important to know where ideologies come from, who is using them, and to what ends they are using them for so we can be reflective of the greater implications of our beliefs.

If you find your ideology in the mouths of authoritarians, fascists, or those with genocidal intent, it's probably worth reflecting on why.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-is-the-great-replaceme...

> WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF 'THE GREAT REPLACEMENT'?

> It is thought to have its roots in early 20th century French nationalism. It was popularized in recent years by French writer Renaud Camus who believes immigration from Africa and the Middle East will eventually lead to the extinction of the native white European race, according to non-profit organization ADL (Anti-Defamation League.) Because many white nationalists in the United States and abroad believe Jewish people are actively encouraging non-white immigration, the false narrative is considered anti-Semitic, the ADL said. White "replacement theory" and the idea of a "white genocide" were a pillar of Nazi Germany's ideology, which pointed to Jews as the single most dangerous threat to white civilization. The Nazis killed six million Jews in World War Two.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#322

Post by abracadaniel »

monksy wrote: post #229
timeagain wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It is also true that women perpetuate these dumb stereotypes of masculinity as well. The ones who are complaining that men lack emotional maturity or inteligence are the same ones that will post on 2xc and say: "Am I a bad person for dumping a guy because I saw him crying and I'm no longer attracted to him?"

You can’t judge behavior of any group based on anonymous internet posts. When you run into the crazy person on the bus, it’s important to realize there’s a bus load of people around them that aren’t crazy. The internet just helps get all of them concentrated into the same place.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#323

Post by ArcticLandfall »

antisthenes wrote: post #307
dahwolf wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also women with impossible standards (e.g. 6'+, $200k+/yearly, loves dogs, wants (or doesn't) kids, is single, from a good family, won't cheat, owns his own house, blue eyes, etc.) refusing to lower them in search of a partner well into their 30s, then wondering "where all the good men are".

Bo Burnham's "Lower your expectations" is a hilarious comedy song covering this exact point. For both men and women.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#324

Post by talldatethrow »

naveen99 wrote: post #309
talldatethrow wrote: post #274

I've been a serial dater for 20+ years now (38M) I've been with 70+ women, and about 10-15 of those for long term. I think more about dating dynamics than basically anyone I've ever met. I'm not sure why. The main takeaway I see from relationships is that I'm expected to give, understand, listen, and bend to be some perfect modern man. I need to be beyond financially stable, I need to be tough, but also have some rom…

it might just be the type of women you attract and or are attracted to. There are definitely women out there who will give their fair share if not more.

Amazingly I haven't really met them, nor have most of my friends, even the married ones. Obviously women work and contribute to households. There are millions of well employed women. The question is, are they satisfied with their partners?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#325

Post by midoridensha »

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…

>Maybe men use porn and play videogames not because they'd rather have that than a real relationship, but because modern relationships don't offer much more than that.

When exactly have relations ever offered much more than that, realistically? Relationships have always (since love marriages became common at least, which is actually relatively recent, historically) offered some rosy vision of love and affection and family and all that, but in reality, only a minority of marriages actually succeeded in having a happy couple without a lot of dysfunction. Unhappy couples were normal in days gone by.

The divorce rate is only high because it's now acceptable to divorce, so unhappy people aren't staying in bad marriages any more. And lately, the divorce rate is falling because people simply aren't getting married as much, and more people are instead avoiding getting into a bad marriage in the first place, unlike their parents and grandparents.

If two people can find true long-term love and affection in a relationship, that's really great. But let's stop pretending that this was ever the norm. It wasn't.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#326

Post by talldatethrow »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #313
talldatethrow wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News flash, most people I know were surprised to find out a woman will accept a free trip in exchange for sex with someone they haven't met. The only saving grace of that tinder experiment is that obviously the match meets a looks threshold since she swiped right on him. Id still basically call it prostitution and the acceptance rate was like 30% flat out, and another 30% cautious but could have been talked into it.…

I’d guess most guys would be down for that too, if the roles were reversed. Humans gonna human.

Men would be down for just easy sex, no cash or trips required. The point is, most people believe women are a bit reserved when dispensing sex. But it seems as long as the guy is a little attractive and offers free stuff, women don't make you jump through as many hoops as some guys are made to jump through.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#327

Post by kelipso »

sudosysgen wrote: post #254
imtringued wrote: post #223

This makes me wonder if Karl Marx‘ analysis of Capitalism is all wrong and not because of economic reasons but rather because men feel compelled to climb the hierarchy, even if it means turning into "exploitative capitalists", to impress women.

That's actually part of Marx's analysis in more words, specifically in how social status is a main driver for working people to give in to the logic of capitalism. Ultimately his argument is that this is fundamentally irrational and that even insofar as there is to be some kind of social status, it's more rational for working people to make that less dependent on capital as they are structurally prevented from achiev…

Individual vs collective incentives no? An individual worker might have a say 1% chance of achieving high status in the capitalist society while the same worker will have a 100% chance of achieving average status in the communist society (though sure plenty of other ways to achieve high status than money).

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#328

Post by jhanschoo »

dahwolf wrote: post #224
jiggawatts wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 choosin…

Not to mention that emotionally intelligent is somewhat of an insulting term. Men and women deal with and express emotions in radically different ways, that doesn't make one way more mature or intelligent.

> Men and women deal with and express emotions in radically different ways

With this statement, I think you are coming from a place of cultural bias. I find that men and women are more alike than "radically different" with emotions, with similar emotional needs and wants (perhaps to different degrees, but there is much variation within gender, I feel). However, in some societies, how they are allowed to recognize, validate, and meet those needs and wants are strongly shaped and regulated. For example, in Roman society, a woman who would want fame and prestige from being seen as virtuous would try to become a Vestal, or show extreme fidelity to a husband publicly. Today, a surer route to fame and prestige will look very different.

I don't think you know what is being meant here by emotionally intelligent. An abusive person who cannot control their anger, or someone who abuses alcohol to cope with their feelings in a detrimental way is an example of someone who is not emotionally intelligent. A person who can, most of the time, empathize with you, and can give and accept help and advice based on your goals putting you first (and explicate and communicate situations wherein they have to prioritize themselves or someone else), and knows their own goals and emotions and what they need, are some of the traits and behaviors of what people refer to as an emotionally intelligent person. Sometimes you see the term emotionally mature, which means the same thing.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#329

Post by sudosysgen »

kelipso wrote: post #327
sudosysgen wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually part of Marx's analysis in more words, specifically in how social status is a main driver for working people to give in to the logic of capitalism. Ultimately his argument is that this is fundamentally irrational and that even insofar as there is to be some kind of social status, it's more rational for working people to make that less dependent on capital as they are structurally prevented from achiev…

Individual vs collective incentives no? An individual worker might have a say 1% chance of achieving high status in the capitalist society while the same worker will have a 100% chance of achieving average status in the communist society (though sure plenty of other ways to achieve high status than money).

Basically, except that it's so unlikely for a worker to achieve truly high status (basically, true financial independence, fat FIRE in today's terms) that it might as well be close to impossible.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#330

Post by midoridensha »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #153
hammock wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Put another way, women aren’t attracted by men who earn a lot, but by men who spend a lot

It's not hard to find "Why is my boyfriend/husband so cheap?" as a recurring question in advice columns. There's definitely a sense among many women that men should be demonstrably spendy - even flamboyant. Presumably because it confers competitive status. I used to have a friend who used to do factory work. She said that whenever any of the women had a new boyfriend one of the first questions was always "What kind o…

>Likewise many dating profiles say "I want a man who will spoil me."

"Looking for a man who is $trait, $trait, and generous."

Post reply on HN