Dating, education, and sex ratios • Hacker News Board

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#361

Post by sjducb » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 7:29 AM UTC

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…

Buy some rental properties. They’re a great investment and as good a status signal as a car.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#362

Post by dahwolf » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 7:46 AM UTC

KptMarchewa wrote: post #266

dahwolf wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. You can frame it how you want. It can also be projected as a strength (emotional control). Or men simply being less interested in exchanging emotions intensely as it's just not that important to them.

The "emotional control" that causes them to absolutely blow the fuck up? It's not unintelligent, primitive or underdeveloped, it's simply a meme, an idea that some people can even sincerely believe but at the end it's a pure lie.

That would be the opposite of emotional control. But surely you got the point that besides suppressing emotions men also tend to simply have less emotional needs or desires to express them.

To bring this down to a real world meme-like example: my girlfriend can fill a solid hour every day discussing her work day and in particular developments in her dealings with colleagues.

I struggle to fill a minute. I'm not suppressing anything, there's simply not much there as it comes to work.

These are just differences, nothing wrong with it.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#363

Post by littlecranky67 » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 8:00 AM UTC

redmerchant2 wrote: post #38

This is a known issue but the down stream effect won’t be felt for a while. Let’s be clear we’re talking about general behavioral trend, not trying to police an individual, which is the crux of contention for these topics. Many women still hold on to the idea of finding a partner that is wealthier and more educated. This is due to the past (over)reliance of their partners for stability. But this is no longer true. Th…

> But in 10-20 years women will out number men in many fields requiring higher education

The irony is, that those white-collar higher education jobs might be the first to be replaced by AI, and in the end not result in high income. We might be looking at a future where a builder, plumber, craftsman etc. will be high up in income and status. I'm curious to see if women with high education but low income would suddenly be attracted to men with low (formal) education and high income.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#364

Post by blackbear_ » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 8:14 AM UTC

randunel wrote: post #118

The article omits the male preference for younger women and that the majority of couples are of an older male and a younger female. This is extremely relevant to the analysis.

AND women's preference for older men, because they are more "mature" or whatever. It's a two-way street.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#365

Post by dahwolf » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 8:47 AM UTC

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #353

dahwolf wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What misogyny? Women are not above criticism and most of the comments dropped here can easily be backed up by data.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what misogyny is. The issue is not if statements here can or can not be backed by data (some probably can, some can’t, some are misrepresented). Misogyny is not prejudice. It also simply is dislike or contempt for women as a gender. Something which is clearly on display throughout this whole page.

The whole page? Surely it must be trivial then for you to produce a few dozen examples?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#366

Post by dahwolf » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 9:03 AM UTC

inconceivable wrote: post #319

dahwolf wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You state this as some casual observation, but it's wild. In my country, 80-90% people in their early 20s are in long term relationship and thus already off the market. They may not be in their final relationship, but they are of a somewhat serious nature and not a one-night stand. By the age of 30, should they be so lucky, many/most would buy their first home. And move in together. If you think that's early, my dad…

you misunderstand what i wrote. 30 is when people start admitting to themselves they're looking for serious relationships. before that they are pretending not to be.

Got it, and interesting point.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#367

Post by piaste » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 9:10 AM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #300

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like most women don't find men who program interesting/fun. or Most men who program aren't "good with socializing" let alone "good with socializing with women".

Programming is a low status job. You might make 7 figures as an engineer but you’re gonna be dateless because programming is still associated with low status. Status is very important for most women.

The bullshit titles that so often make us roll our eyes come in handy here.

You write REST APIs thirty-five hours a week? "Communications Designer". You oversee two juniors? "Team Lead". You tweak microcode? "R&D Specialist". And so on.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#368

Post by dahwolf » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 9:18 AM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #306

dahwolf wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. You can frame it how you want. It can also be projected as a strength (emotional control). Or men simply being less interested in exchanging emotions intensely as it's just not that important to them.

> It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. I've heard a lot about men needing to be more expressive and open about their inner emotional state, but I've never heard people mention stoicism in the same context or that stoicism necessarily leads to the opposite of that. Or that stoicism is associated with being unintelligent, primitive or underdev…

I'm not a native speaker so it could be the wrong word. I wasn't aiming for Stoicism, the philosophy. Instead trying to describe the effect where some men seem emotionally indifferent, or present themselves as such.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#369

Post by KptMarchewa » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 10:11 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #292

KptMarchewa wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "emotional control" that causes them to absolutely blow the fuck up? It's not unintelligent, primitive or underdeveloped, it's simply a meme, an idea that some people can even sincerely believe but at the end it's a pure lie.

Men experience significantly lower rates of most common mental disorders; that gap is wider in younger people, appears to be widening over time and persists after controlling for confounding variables. Men are more likely to die by suicide, but they're drastically less likely to attempt suicide; the discrepancy is accounted for by men choosing more lethal means. There is simply no evidence to support the idea that wo…

>Men experience significantly lower rates of most common mental disorders;

Men are diagnosed significantly lower, not experience.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#370

Post by worrycue » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 10:29 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #186

mensetmanusman wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Life is also about experiencing things (presumably as much things as possible) ... which cost money unfortunately. So it's not necessarily about status.