You mean the system was heavily stacked to make women reliant on men. I won't call that a compromise.

The tables haven't turned, the game changed. We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men. If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers. They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs.

hundreds of thousands of men that we have imprisoned, thousands of men with mental health issues and drug addictions. men that took a wrong turn in life and ended up homeless, destitute or in the prison.

These men have been systematically kept out of jobs. There has to be special kind of hypocrisy in action to conclude society influences women's choices( eg: giving them barbie/pink toys) and prevents them from having a STEM career and yet turn around and say men at bottom belong there because of their own failings. Men at the bottom must pay the price for the 'privilege' enjoyed by men at top.

According to the narrative, a rich woman is 'systematically be kept out of jobs' while a poor boy man in a war/drug-torn urban environment is not. I just hate this line of thought so much.

Sex is not a deterrent to one's success in todays America, parental income is, a privilege that can be precisely measured.

By and large, men aren't being denied access to an interview simply based on their gender. If we go back a few decades, women were denied access to an interview simply based on their gender.

there are other issues like pervasive culture of sexual harassment in tech but getting hired is not one of them.

People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life.

Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting to talk to, and if I have to have a good job lined up, well, that's how you play the game.

Now...if society is breaking in a way that it's tough for men to get good jobs, then let's look at that. Women aren't to blame for that, though. Let's look at what's really going on.

What are all those men going to do when they have both no stake in the economy, and little or no chance of finding a woman to love them? What percentage of men like this can society handle before some sort of tipping point is reached?

I refer you to this comment from "wingless" from another discussion currently on the front page:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795855

I'm always aware of this whenever the usual stuff about the "gender pay gap" gets trotted out by the media. Men and men women are playing entirely different games in the employment market. A woman is working for the money and whatever satisfaction she derives from the job itself. A man is working for his ability to attract a girlfriend, his status in society, his entire sense of "value". It's hardly surprising that men are motivated to choose riskier and higher earning careers.

I don't mean to go all PC police on you, especially since I agree with the first part of your comment, but this is most certainly not the case with most millennials (and even many women of the generation before). Most of the young women I meet today very much subscribe to the same notion of getting their sense of worth through their jobs, independence etc. So I would argue they are playing the same "game" in the employment market. However, our (US) society continues to propagate certain gender-stereotypes about careers which seep into all other aspects of our culture as well. e.g. its much more acceptable/common to be a female engineer in China and India. Now once these stereotypes are removed, you would see a lot more cross-participation which would be REALLY good for the US economy.

Is it sexist? Is it true? Is it a different story in China?

In China, both genders are equally judged on looks. It's common for job applications to require headshots, which I find odd, but apparently that practice also exists in Germany and some South American countries.

1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!)

2) Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. (And again, work at a local level to make it OK not to have a big thriving career, since it's not gonna happen for a lot of folks.)

That's what I'd do. The system of "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back. I wouldn't even try to resuscitate it.

I really hate (nothing personal) this "wishful-thinking" type of activism ("we really need to do...!". You want to change women's sexual preferences? How, through CRISPR? How will you "work at a local level" to make fat 50 year olds with high school diplomas more attractive to women?

> "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back

Instead of saying that, how about saying that everybody, including 50 year olds in mainland America, deserves the opportunity of a good job? It's like saying "fat people should be just as attractive" instead of just losing weight.

The current situation is not a refutation of "men are worth something because of their career", just a confirmation. It doesn't "have to come back", because it never left. This is how it has been, is, and will be. You're saying men without ambition or money are entitled to relationships, which they're not. Some people just can't compete, doesn't make the competition obsolete.

For one - the working hours in the US are crazy. Cap it at 32 hours and badaboom, everyone has a job. Combined with a decent minimum wage, you'd be fine. And yes, if this would result in economic collapse, Europe would've gone to sheise a looooong time ago yet the countries rated as best to live are the ones who have executed exactly that recipe.

but I actually interact a lot, in a volunteer capacity, with the black community where I live. I'm just realizing that I've never noticed that the whole "men are worth something because of their career" thing there. I'm not passing relative value judgements or anything, but I do wonder if there is something sociologically about black american subculture that makes women look past all that???

I am not a woman. So I can only say what I see, (and there seems to be a lower tendency towards marriage in their community anyway). But from what I see... there are black female doctors with laid off garbagemen for instance. I see self employed business women with unemployed guys. (Generally laid off laborers.) I see a lot of really high ranking corporate vp or law firm type women with teachers/community organizer types. (That one happens a lot.) Couples like these constitute a sizable portion of what I would call the "black middle class" where I am. And of course, you have the regular couples that look like what we would call more traditional, with both parties working at the same level. But that doesn't happen NEARLY as often as you'd think, and the egalitarian pairings also don't seem to last as long as the high ranking female-low ranking male pairings. (Divorce-wise I mean.)

Here's the thing though... I can't actually recall ever coming across a couple where the man was "higher ranking" than the woman??? There are probably a few out there, but I don't come across them in my interactions.

I never thought about that until I read through this thread.

It would be interesting to look through some of these smaller communities to find out how they deal with what seems to be slowly happening in the larger society. Just throwing that out there because they seem to be further down the road towards this "jobless" economic system. The reasons may be really simple. ie - maybe they just have a different culture??? And that's fine. Or maybe it's that the pressures on women in certain american subcultures are different??? Or whatever??? Who knows??? As I said... I'm not a woman... but I think it would be worth looking at.

The more I think about it... the more differences there are popping into my mind right now. It really is fascinating. I never stopped to think about it before.

I think there was some data from okcupid that showed black men are a lot more popular (based on messages sent etc) with women of other races than black women with men of other races (I have no idea why).

The uncomfortable truth could be that high-status black men have their pick of other races, leaving high-status black women to date lower status men.

Which you've just fabricated on the spot based on some racial stereotypes (and your presumably very important feelings).

The data reflect the same basic anti-black racism as the rest of society.

https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-attraction-2009-2014-10...

Bernie Sanders 2011: American dream more apt to be realized in Venezuela where incomes are more equal https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-...

Six years later, Venezuelans are facing malnutrition from severe shortages in basic goods. 75 percent Venezuelan lost 19 pounds in 2016:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/02/19/Venezuela-...

I wonder which might have a higher economic impact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Venezuel...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_in_Venezuela

I would dearly love to believe this is possible, but I fear it's not. I don't think (most) women are capable of overcoming their programming to seek a high-status provider.

For the first time in how many centuries, they don't have to be chained to some dud with a good job, and they're figuring out what they want.

Good poetry? Being a good househusband? There's going to be quality in that.

World's changing, and you can't get away being a schlub just cause you've got a good job anymore. I say bring it.

Bernie Sanders 2011: American dream more apt to be realized in Venezuela where incomes are more equal https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-...

Six years later, Venezuelans are facing malnutrition from severe shortages in basic goods. 75 percent of Venezuelan lost 19 pounds in 2016:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/02/19/Venezuela-...

I don't think any other oil economy has seen 75 percent of the population lose 19 lb in a year from malnutrition. The total ignorance of Venezuelan economic officials is what is behind the severity of the shortages. This quote from 2011 is emblematic of that:

“The law of supply and demand is a lie,” Karlin Granadillo, the head of a price control agency set up to enforce the new regulations, said on state television. “These are not arbitrary measures. They are necessary.”

http://www.pressherald.com/2011/11/26/venezuelas-price-contr...

For reasons like this, I find the promotion of socialism to be morally reprehensible.

Pretty much everywhere in the world, lower income inequality is closely correlated with being a nicer place to live in for everyone - like Finland, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany and so on.

That there are countries where the government, under the ruse of either socialist or libertarian policies, steals from its people has little to do with it.

I don't think the comments in this section suggested blaming women for reducing men's partipation in the workforce. Specifically, the comment's OP seems to be suggesting that while the economic tables have changed, socially it is still a requirement for men to have a regular, well paying job (or whatever that expectation is) which perhaps also need to change to accommodate the reality that a lot of men may not satisfy that requirement, while still being good partners in relationships.

Nope, if women are happy, then good for them, they certainly don't need to make a compromise. They don't owe men anything.

You might have seen it in a different context than the author. While you may have interpreted it as saying that if women don't compromise, then they are bad, the author could have meant that if women don't compromise, then (the population will decrease/whatever else that might make sense).

Well, that's the whole point. Family courts are still heavily biased towards women. As long as women and men are not treated differently, and alimony and spousal support are evenly distributed between genders, then yes, "bring it on".

I did not say that. But "expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great." is not so great. If you start to put socio-economic criterias for a relationship, I don't think you really want a relationship.

You may want to reassess your approach after reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795367.

In short: Data indicate our current society doesn't function in a world where men aren't substantially better off - and we're equitably continuing to head away from that.

An intelligent, thoughtful, rational approach would be ideal rather than seeking to score points "white knighting" or "feministing" in the gender war.

Or keep picking on them and ignore the problem. Help show the world that feminists are no better than the men they deride. Besides, what type of harm can broken family units and a substantial disillusioned male subclass possibly cause anyway?

What about college graduation rates? New college grads are heavily biased in favor of women, and women earn more money than male counterparts on average(until some decide to take off in their career to have/raise kids).

In my perception most women don't look at men who aren't more well off than themselves or lower status than themselves.

So lets look at a single person without a job in that context: On day one when two people meet, when both are single, if one of them doesn't have a job, it is a red flag that the person without a job might not be willing or able to contribute in the future. The relationship starts without a shared home, so just one person spending all the money. It isn't balanced.

So when you get down to it, it isn't a gender thing. It is a money thing.

I agree with your premise that unequal incomes (especially if they are glaring) can be a significant barrier to relationships. But what if e.g. the woman makes enough for the both of them, and all she is looking for in a partner is emotional well being, someone to talk/share activities etc.

So its not just a money thing IMO. It seems like the US culture has still not adopted to the economic realities of today. And it hurts everyone: a woman may know that she doesn't care about income differences and wants a partner for other reasons, but she will be dissuaded from pursuing such relationships by her friends/family etc.

It worked well unless you were a woman with ambitions outside of the kitchen and bedroom. In that case, it was living hell and maybe you'd get luck with a world war.

Slavery worked fine too, unless you were a slave.

Not it wasn't living hell. Having professional goals was a luxury.

Living hell was participating in wars, working 12 hours a day in a coal mine, etc.

Experiences that mainly men had the pleasure to enjoy

The nice thing about this is that it's largely a statement of fact, not an ideological question. It's an issue we can actually evaluate using evidence.

So. Where's your evidence for this claim?

I have plenty of evidence for mine. We can go read memoirs, first-hand, and second-hand accounts from women in the 19th and early 20th century. The downsides are well-documented.

> Having professional goals was a luxury

Those well-documented downsides extend far beyond the absence of professional goals.

Financial dependence is coercive, especially when paired with lax legal protections. Lack of personal economic autonomy, enforced by culture and in many cases law, gives rise to a whole range of depressing conditions. Lack of professional ambition was only one contributor to a huge constellation of factors that made many women's lives a living hell.

> Living hell was participating in wars, working 12 hours a day in a coal mine, etc.

Of course, men also enjoyed professional positions in academics, in industry, and in government that women were cut off from.

> Experiences that mainly men had the pleasure to enjoy

What is the relevance of this observation to the current discussion?

Does doing a crappy job entitle a man to the affection or devotion of a woman? If not, then what bearing does the existence of crappy jobs have on the status of women in society?

Also, there's plenty of pain and misery to go around. No reason to turn it into a contest. And we certainly have no good reason to condition women's status in society on the total abolition of men working undesirable jobs.

Reading your post, it's not obvious that this is what you meant.

And in any case, you are still ignoring the woman's perspective. It was entirely too common for women to enter into relationships that they had no real interest in out of social and financial necessity.

For example someone below said women won't mind dating men with less status once our culture evolves. Are we so sure of that?

This is not a criticism of females. I doubt any gender can be cultured out preference for physical attributes.

We can support equal rights and still acknowledge innate differences right?

These are evolutionary traits and will most likely not change at least at the time scale of a few generations.

>We can support equal rights and still acknowledge innate differences right?

That's the idea. Law and human rights are deeply "contra natura" by definition.

Ignoring nature to the extent we are doing as a species will not end well as far as having a just society.

Here I think your assumption is factually wrong. DNA testing shows that it is relatively recent (very few thousands of years)

This means that a male can father many more offsprings than a female can in her lifetime.

Even though monogamy..as a modern concept..is more prevalent, it is more often than not, serial monogamy.

But. Because. Evolutionary hardwiring.

Women want males to be providers because males can impregnate multiple females at the same time. Without being a bonded pair, or the resource costly job of raising offsprings would not be a shared endeavor. Bringing forth children takes a physical toll on a woman in more ways than one. It doesn't cost men anything other than ejaculation to create offspring. So women give birth. Men provide.

Of course, society has changed so much since cave men days, but our wiring probably hasn't..

Tying back to original topic...when women provide for themselves, what is the role of men? Perhaps our free floating relationship matrix without the need to be bonded pairs to bring forth offsprings is the reason.

Birds spend a lot of energy while flying..they have hollow bones and have a high metabolism. They expend a lot of energy just to exist. They migrate.

Mammals hibernate. They know how to conserve and regulate metabolism. Their energy needs are less expensive. Maybe that's why birds are monogamous and many mammals have harems.

As mammals, the human animal is already living within a moral but artificial construct of monogamy. Female apes share responsibilities to raise their young communally. Monogamy is an evolutionary disadvantage. It conserves energy and resources. It promotes kinship.

Human apes don't. Right or wrong, that's different. But we don't. If women can provide for themselves and have control over their reproductive freedoms, why do they need free range men anyways? The Y chromosome is supposedly composed of junk DNA.

This is bit of a ramble, but I would like to think it made at least some go 'a-ha'!

> why do they need free range men anyways?

Because people need affection and to have fun, even isolated mothers. When you start to put socio-economical criterias into your love life, some people will get frustrated. That's the whole point of tinder, so that people get out more and just spend some good time for their well being.

You said that we are wired, and this is true, so when civilized society start to meddle with this wiring, it can be a weird feeling.

This may be evolutionary wired, but forget about it. That mental model has no potential to help.

Effective relationships must provide value to both parties.

So demonstrate value. "Comfortable situation" is one shortcut to measure value. "Great father", "good listener", "considerate", "sane", "stable" are all incredibly valuable and crazy hard to measure.

The dirty truth: Many men don't provide value.

So it is not a direct cause, but it can be a cause.

> "Great father", "good listener", "considerate", "sane", "stable" are all incredibly valuable and crazy hard to measure.

Well only women can really evaluate and "feel" those qualities.

Women are hardwired to look for men with resources or the ability to get them. It comes down to whether a man can provide the woman with a safe and clean place to have her babies. In the past, this signal has taken the form of physical strength, number of slaves, land, goats, whatever. Today, it's jobs and/or money.

Then add a layer of the instinctive hunger for status within any social species.

For a given batch of economically successful women, most would rather share a successful man or stay single rather than compromise and mate with a low-status man with no resources.

Can't blame women for looking for these things the same way men can't be blamed for looking for youth and fertility in a woman.

To dismiss out of hand thousands of years of evolution and think the last 50+ years of modern societal change can completely counteract biological forces is.. wishful thinking?

I mean, this explanation is at least as good as any other speculation in this thread.

Women marry a lot of different kinds of men, for example: men who make them laugh. Men who are attentive, or ambitious, or well spoken, travelled, groomed, serious, sensitive, quiet, gregarious or any number of adjectives, none of which directly reflect their income.

In simple terms, a lot of,the thread here is guys super imposing the logic of power and position onto 'women'.

A specific type of person seeks mates primarily because of their position, these tend to be ambitious and ambition valuing people.

This is in no way the full set of women.

Yes Statistically, the logic of evolution will result in a bias. Women would love to marry an Adonis who was a PE fund owner, or a cardio-neuron surgeon.

It doesn't mean people wither away, waiting for it to happen.

The most popular trope is not of dr rich, or mr moneybags - its Prince Charming.

Your spouse will be found through the places you visit, the education you attend, via the people you meet, the places you work and and the hobbies you enjoy.

Not just because of the size of your paycheck.

And your spouse will very likely try their level best (all things held equal) to help you out when your paycheck is down, the same way many wives have been all through the recession when people were laid off, and their husbands (and themselves) weren't rising up the corporate ladder.

You may never know why, precisely, your spouse decided you were worth spending the rest of their life with.

But its not just because of biological programming.

Personally, I don't agree with their belief. We can acknowledge differences between the sexes, yet maintain equal opportunity for those who want to oppose the norm.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

My claim: almost every human adult has had at least one sexual partner. I can only find decent studies surveying modernity, but for example: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/. Assuming most humans having sex is not a recent development, any evolutionary pressures, if they exist at all, on the sexually active population are unclear at best; however, there may be pressures against the tiny few who go through life abstinent.

"After a study by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research last year found a massive increase in the number of virgins in [Japan], some academics criticised the way the research was reported.

Of 5,000 single people surveyed, the government department found 42 per cent of men and 44 per cent of women had never had sex."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-couples-s...

or being supportive, or making their life better/easier/funnier. I have dated women that were higher status than me and I'm still friend with many of them.

Being nice is a much more appreciated quality than being wealthy, especially if at work they must fight everyday to prove that their value is the same of men in the company, if not higher.

The same applies to women: I prefer nicer ones and, I must say, usually it is associated with higher education.

Not everyone can become rich or have a good job, that's true, but everyone can become a better man.

EDIT: I'm in my 40s, not exactly a kid anymore.

The snarky way to reply to this is, if you're so smart, why can't you get laid?

edit: are not confounded by. Also, if you're downvoting in response to something other than the useless snark at the end of my post, please comment.

Can I ask what this refers to? SSRI?

Most of us here on HN work in the tech industry, with its notorious sexism and underrepresentation problems. So let's get real here.

To claim that the tables have turned reeks of the same claim to victimhood that the straight white christian men that voted for Trump use to justify their crap.

You claim you don't want to right the "whole mensright bandwagon", but you're already on it.

The tables aren't even close to having been turned, the disappearance of many jobs that men continued to claim for themselves until they stopped existing is just a coincidence.

I really think something has changed about how people socialize and it's simply become harder to meet like minded people; It's harder to network professionally, it's harder to find fabricators, workers, mates etc. Fundamentally, that's the problem that needs to be solved.

EDIT: I've misinterpreted this.

But I think that is not typical of cultures across space and time. Just ask Jane Austen. :-)

I think the issue is that it's SO EASY to find people that there is very little incentive to actually care about a specific group more than any other. Its like criticisms of modern dating. The ocean is so large and easy to navigate that there is no incentive to get anything to actually work. Just moving on is easier.

Yes, it's a skill that like any other, requires deliberate practice. The skill, however, is being a generally enjoyable person to be around.

#(If it seems like the last point contradicts the honesty, don't go around making sex your goal. Most humans are horny, it ain't anything you really need to draw attention to.)

edit: downvote with comments

e2: A known effect of attacking (without confronting the core of the problem), or suppressing, or dismissing parties expressing certain beliefs or engaging in particular behaviors is that the opposing party reaffirms their actions or beliefs. Two-way intelligent and earnest discussion makes both sides amenable to the reasonable positions of the other.

The downvotes are here not because people disagree with you, but because the comment doesn't confront the core of the problem and doesn't contribute to the discussion in a productive way. It can be hard not to take downvotes personally and get defensive, but the comment in question is not defensible.

The sole fact that you commented compelled me to clarify my position and admit that I may indeed have misunderstood the original poster. That is why I am so insistent on actual discussion. My original reaction was, "these people aren't using their words to address mine? Clearly they can't even use their words, so they must be wrong and I must be right." Obviously that reaction isn't rational in this case, but I don't really know what to do about it yet other than to always try to provoke earnest debate.

Downvotes are essential. Replying to a poor-quality comment wastes time and effort, downvoting means that other people won't read it.

> Obviously that reaction isn't rational in this case, but I don't really know what to do about it yet other than to always try to provoke earnest debate.

Consider that the reaction may not be rational in other cases. The appeal here is basically an emotionally-founded ultimatum, "Reply to me or else I won't change my opinion." That's how I interpreted it.

A core problem with earnest debate online is that comments are so often misinterpreted. Maybe I just misinterpreted yours! You can write defensively, but defensive writing is less clear. My writing on Stack Overflow, Hacker News, etc. is very defensive and it suffers for it, but I deal with fewer comments that misinterpret things. You can also interpret comments liberally. Consider, "You can't find women unless you have a job." Literally it means that unemployed men are incapable of getting girlfriends or wives. This is obviously false, so there's no point in replying to the literal interpretation here.

> I disagree with this fundamentally - my assertion is that the most reliable and broadly applicable way of attracting women is to be charismatic, and that charisma is a trainable skill.

Here are the problems I see with this series of comments:

The original comment did not make this claim, no matter how generously I read it. At best, that claim is a presupposition of the original comment. The difference betwen presuppositions and claims is critical for good discussion. It is cumbersome to reply to a statement when you disagree with a presupposition, which is why unjustified presuppositions are considered a type of informal fallacy.

The second problem is that the claim is not germane. The comment by jokoon claims that it is much more difficult for unemployed men to get a girlfriend, and saying that charisma is more important than employment status is tangential at best.

The third problem is that the reply to jokoon's comment is poor quality. The first four sentences seem like they were copied from the section headings of a random dating advice article. The advice is so obvious that the comment seems to carry the implication that jokoon must be a true idiot in order to need this advice.

e: a broader point that I touch on in other comments is that the bar to having a partner in general is low-to-nonexistent. However, doing the above opens up the most options. e2: Yes, having status also expands options. However, it's neither broadly applicable nor helps maintain the long term emotional bond. Parent expressed frustration at the economic tension involved in middle class relationships. The answer to this is emphatically not wealth or status, as relationship-wise, that only trades one class of stressors for another.