Please don't do gender flamewar on HN. Nothing new comes of these, and nothing good.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: this kind of thing has unfortunately been a problem many times:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22124843

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22059070

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21785560

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21329278

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289069

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19862112

Worse, your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it. We have to, in order to prevent HN from being taken over by flames. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this so we don't have to ban you. If you want more explanation about how/why we moderate this way, there is plenty at these links:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Extremely controversial.

Could we not also blame men for competing for the attention of the most attractive women, who then in turn can demand more resources?

I do think we attack men for being shallow more often than we attack women for being materialistic. The latter doesn’t get as much attention or critique, eg wanting a bigger house or label fashion is often seen as aspirational and positive; wanting a more attractive partner is not seen in the same light.

Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources?

Are these just instincts that exist independently? Would removing one remove the other? Are they even so strong as to bind us by them?

In reality I think these instincts don’t rule us. Choosing a partner is a combination of physical and mental attraction, as well as a function of social status. We can choose. Timshel.

> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources?

Great question. I think there are strong forces and dynamics that push us to earn more and "improve", constantly, regardless of whether we have a partner or not. It's kindof what a capitalistic society is built upon. If we didn't consume much gdp wouldn't grow right? If we didn't compete how would earnings increase? It's coming from peers, parents, spouses and from the way society itself is structured. I think it doesn't have tons to do with genes or evolutionary instincts though they may also explain some of it.

I think it is in our nature to strive for more. An interesting read about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

We aren't made to be happy, only motivated

> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources?

Two reasons.

First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun.

Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their own. There is essentially no limit to how many women a man can mate with.

These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise.

> These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise.

Let me see if I have this straight: selection processes have favored those with the ability to provide for their offspring because it ensures the survival of their lineage. Consequently women tend to consider competitive men who have high wealth and status more attractive, therefore it is the fault of women that men are so competitive?

In your reasoning, men do not have the agency to choose not to be competitive, women do have the agency to choose who they are attracted to, and natural selection pressures are blameless. That's a pretty arbitrary place to draw the line don't you think?

> fault

This is where you begin to introduce your own ideas rather than talk about mine. I didn't use that word and certainly didn't imply that anybody is at fault here. Sometimes things are just true. It doesn't mean anybody is to blame or that anybody is "better" than anybody else.

> the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women

Why have they singled out women here if not to place blame? Women are a product of selection pressures just as much as men are. Moreover, it isn't like women are not on the same hamster wheel as everyone else.

For a start, you can't "single out" half of the population. Women aren't a minority.

I disagree with anyone who wants to pin the blame on current individuals or groups for things which were caused by evolution. Check the comment I was replying to here.

If men choose not to be competitive and women don't change, those men just exclude their genes from the gene pool.

I don't know where you got that idea from, but your impression of the entire female gender is flawed, stereotypical, and yes, wrong.

I'm male. My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. Most people I know similarly refute your opinion by their goals, personalities, and life status.

> I don't know where you got that idea from, but your impression of the entire female gender is flawed, stereotypical, and yes, wrong.

OP is maybe exaggerating to make a point but there's a Seinfeld episode which I remember from many years ago, where Jerry says something like how a man can be really interested in what a woman does at her work, even though that woman might be a janitor, while the reverse is not true, no woman is interested in a man who's a janitor (I mean, she's not interested in his work).

And the statistics seem to support that, as more men are willing to marry women who are "beneath" them from a societal point of view (career and education) compared to women (i.e. women are less likely than man to marry members of the opposite sex who are placed "bellow" them).

> My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires.

I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. To each her own, of course.

(I take no position on the GP's controversial theory. Just calling out that the implications of the parent's comment strike me as unintuitive.)

> I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers.

Really? You've never heard of somebody who'd rather their spouse work shorter hours and spend more time with them at home? Or spend more time with their family? Or travel more with them?

My hunch: His wife likely still wants him to be capable of material success and competition. She just doesn't want him to prioritize those endeavors past some particular threshold.

Said another way, one's spouse probably finds it attractive that one can get a new job if one loses the current one.

Marriages often go to hell when the husband is out of work and it becomes obvious that he either cannot or will not return to the workforce. That is, when a husband becomes a materially poor individual who does not strive vs his peers.

This is a nasty generalization at best, and terrible sexism at worst. Why do you think you know my wife better than me?

What's sexist? I appreciate that my wife is employable and tries to do her best in competitions. That's why I said "spouse".

The divorce thing is true for men specifically: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000312241665534...

What's nasty? Expecting that people generally value economic capability and competitive ambition in their life partners?

And, true, I don't know your wife. That's why I said to each her own. Still, as a thought experiment, quit your job and watch TV for 24 months solid then tell me how it's going.

Note I said material goods, not material wealth. She values stability and safety, not the acquisition of stuff.

This sounds suspiciously like incel ideology.

Whatever cognitive path you're on that's led you to conclude this, I advise you to swiftly veer away from it.

Blaming all the women isn't going to help with anything. People will just think, oh there's that weird sexist guy ranting on again. That's not going to get you anywhere useful.

If his point is so easy to refute logically, you would have done so. Your entire comment is an ad hominem.

Because the point is not really a logical statement, but an appeal to emotion, expecting a logical refutation to a non logical statement is absurd and TBH, kinda ignorant of all the kinds of valid discussion humans have all the time.

Do you really think is reasonable to demand a change of behavior in women instead of maybe demanding the same from men?

Do you really think men with a couple are no longer part of the competition drivel?

I must be confused. I didn't read his controversial opinion as a demand, I read it as an observation. It's as unreasonable to expect women to counter their nature as it would be to tell men to stop preferring youth and beauty.

> If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth.

You know, I care a little about the framing. It can be that women could choose something different, or maybe men can also choose to not be part of the rat race, maybe it can be both, or maybe as you mentioned, it’s an impossible scenario. I don’t know with what I’ve read about what we know (and mostly don’t know about human mind) and with humanity’s history I choose to be careful with what it’s human nature and what could change.

But anyway the statement is as it is, and assigns responsibility mostly to women, which can be an assumption that women have more agency than men, or just blaming the opposite sex; as common in incel ideology. Not really reasonable either way IMO.

Well exactly, he didn't have a logical point to make. Just an unfounded assumption that women are ruining things for everyone.

Where did 'ruining things for everyone' come from? In the same vein, I could interpret the post as 'women drive more economic growth than men'.

It came from their comment, specifically:

> a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses

> the never-ending hamster wheel situation

> perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth

It's just as common to blame "all the men" for women's never-ending insecurity about their own attractiveness. I'm not sure what incel ideology has to do with either.

Even if some women blame "all the men" for their problems, that doesn't mean that blaming all women for something in turn is any more justifiable.

You're completely mistaking me. Of course it's a symbiotic relationship. But if men choose not to be competitive, those men will just exclude themselves from procreation. The power is in women's hands to change it by being less avaricious. For example plenty of women have been conned by De Beers into thinking they need a diamond engagement ring worth x times monthly salary, else the prospective spouse isn't worth it. And plenty of them couldn't care less about the horrible circumstances behind their diamond. Let's not put either sex on a pedestal here.

Oh and thanks for your concern, but I'm doing just fine with my current cognitive path thanks. Mortgage, marriage, kids etc. all in hand.

> the basics of survival

How about medicine? Medical care in worse cases? Also, do you plan to have children? If so, how about child care and education?

I think there are other reasons for the complexity of human societies. (To say nothing of the military implications of having wealth and technology.)

While they may have the upper hand when it comes to selecting companions, they definitely don't have more power over men. One simply has to look at laws in cultures all over the world that suppress their rights. In societies where they don't have the right to choose their mates male competition still exists. In addition, what alternative are you even suggesting? That women choose defy their own well-being and mate with all men?

I think your controversial opinion is more correct than it is incorrect. I don't believe it's anything that an individual woman would notice consciously on a daily basis, but the idea that women are attracted to the ability of a man to provision for her and her children as a survival adaptation over time is clearly true. It's true of other mammals and primates, at least.

> Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women, in that it is women's selection of mates and desire for consumer goods etc. that drive male competition. If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth.

I think you are correct that the main driving force here is sex. Sex drives far more of the world than most people would admit to. It is the fundamental raison d'être that every sexual organism is born with.

But I think you are incorrect that women have the power to change it. You're talking about deep rooted instincts that have developed over billions of years. While many of us do learn to control our instincts to some extent, it's a bit much to expect the entire female population to control theirs. And even if you did control female hypergamy, you'd still have male polygamy to deal with. That's why the Bible targeted both (don't covert your neighbour's wife etc.)

Women care about money and education but it's not as if they're all the same. Some care a lot about humour, confidence, hell even artistic abilities. Yes some broke musician can appear very sexy to some women even if he isn't a great provider. Some even care a lot about looks just like men. Women vary quite a lot by who they consider mating potential.

It's important not to confuse individuals with populations.

This is one of the biggest problems when talking about things like this. People make statements about populations and others refute them using observations about individuals. Of course individuals are different, but individuals have very limited control over society. We are not a bunch of unrelated individuals, we are a society. The top level comment is talking about society.

It seems clear to me that society is much more aggressive about controlling male-normative instincts, which are characterized as violent and isolationist. Consumption and financial mating, however, are encouraged and enforced by every level of our social hierarchy. These instincts could also be controlled.

Controlling male instincts is advantageous for everyone. Men are basically told to stop fighting each other and work together. In return they get the chance to have one wife and a decent way of life. It's a big win for most men. Women also benefit from the technology and societal improvements that come about as a result of not being at war all the time.

If you controlled female instincts what would you achieve? You tell women to date a poorer man. A less attractive man. A less intelligent man etc. What do they gain from this? Nothing. It's all sacrifice with no gain.

It comes down to positive enforcement versus negative enforcement. Positive enforcement is always more effective in the long run.

You haven’t met enough women that held out too long for the perfect man, and now clasp desperately to one they secretly despise. There are benefits to acceptance and satisfaction with less.

I'd argue the desire for consumer goods is very much equal for men and women, and is not inherently a bad thing. Some people are content when they have _things_, others seek thrill and experiences. Getting drunk on power is a trip worth striding for for many.

The hamster-wheel is not based on any single subset of desires, it's the sum of all of them

During westward expansion in the US the rush sometimes produced towns with few women. Life wasn't magically better or less stressful. It was actually the growing female influence that brought some balance and peace.

The controversal part is the first paragraph, you are nursing a victim mentality here. What stops you going to Alaska and get your cabin in the woods.

There's zero wilderness left in the UK, the less populated areas have virtually zero jobs, and the government is intent on increasing the population and destroying the countryside as a consequence. There is (deliberately?) no escape.

I see your point but you can't blame this entirely on women. Men themselves rank each other based on status / earnings. They may not do it to each other's faces but definitely there's a mental book-keeping on whose "doing well" , and accordingly many men will show more respect to people with high status. Now of course not everyone's like that, and indeed this changes from culture to culture on how pronounced it is. Also, the more capitalistic a society is and the weaker the social safety net, one can't really blame women for chasing savings and things. They and there offsprings can potentially end up in the street if circumstances go bad, so they need a partner that can take care of their material wellbeing.

Son, you’re not going to get where you want to be until you resolve whatever lead you to find this thought important enough to write down in public.

You're wrong. It is possible to both accept uncomfortable truths and be happy. A fundamental part of Stoicism is not to trouble yourself with things out of your control. This frees your mind to be able to think about these things without being personally troubled by them.

The man literally said he’s bothered by something outside his control.

I think that's a bit unfair. I think that yes male dominance and competition has a lot to do with females. It's like that in nature and like that in humans as well. You are interpreting what he said as being hostile to women while that may not be the case.

They did take a risk speaking out. But let's assume the best intention: genuine curiosity.

While I don't agree with the question's premise both it and the reverse can be asked without "punching down".