If you focus on the economic issues - especially those of inequality, it seems to me you would fix far more issues than focusing on social ones. Unfortunately, the "progressive left" is the only political sect that seems to care about these issues but the economic issues don't get nearly the same airtime as the social ones. Drag shows seem to get 1000x the coverage than unions.

This isn't true. The corporate and professional managerial class are not the same people unionizing coffeeshops and railroads. This is a elite backed misdirection in the same vein that focuses drag shows.

It's difficult to take people seriously when those same "corporate and professional managerial class" are called the "progressive left" while be simultaneously anti-union. Must of what you call "the progressive left" are also just anti-religious conservatives (or left-leaning libertarians at best).

You'd have to go full Taliban/Gilead and cut off education/take the decades to brainwash the girls. It'd take a few generations before (most of) the women would comply, so none of the men arguing for it now would even benefit.

Which is why I'm convinced it's all an edgy LARP - the right wing version of 18 and 19 year old undergraduate anti-capitalists who can't tell you what capitalism actually IS. (I'm anti-capitalist myself but they make my side look bad...)

The reason there are lots of lonely men out there is because they self-radicalize themselves on garbage ideology like this, and it becomes impossible for them to form relationships or integrate into society.

Basically selecting themselves out of the gene pool by being fucking idiots.

Homophobia leading to homosocial connections being stigmatized.

Men being objectified for their economic utility leading to them investing less in personal relationships and development.

The stereotype of men being dangerous, leading to aversion to people initiating connections with them and less receptiveness when they do attempt to initiate.

And, above all, the idea that men are hyperagents and thus always responsible for their own issues, and that society shouldn't do anything to help them.

With that said, there seems to be some unique circumstances in Korea as it's not what I'd call a progressive culture and they have a very low birthrate.

And do you want to force those 100 female to each marry a guy, even if they don't want to?

> macroeconomic conditions such as soaring housing prices and intense employment pressure also come into play, forcing many people to give up trying to tie the knot

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3204140/y...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-driven-record-rents-m...

Also it's would help killing the sex trade as a young man will pe willing to pay for it via websites or in person, but don't form those long term relationships before it's too late.

South Korea is a christian nation; forget prostitution, even pornography is banned in South Korea. South Korea, while being largely agnostic (~49%), is largely a christian nation by largest sect. If your prescriptions worked, South Korea would be a poster child for christian conservative values, but alas here we are reading about South Korean middle aged men.

I don't know what it is about the refusal acknowledge the clear economic failures happening right now and to completely ignore that those grievances of the progressive left while hyperfocusing on more feminist policies. People simply cannot afford to do anything other than work, and it's somehow shocking that people who spend all their time working don't have time to form meaningful relationships or even plan for children.

That last part is really important to understand for these discussions: people sometimes talk about dating like a market but notice how rarely the proposed answer is helping men be better partners rather than pressuring women to accept less.

Stigmatization itself is the root of the problem here: lonely people, and particular men, do not want to admit that they are lonely.

As a concrete (and tiny) example: we enforce loneliness at the physical and policy levels by subsiding the construction of car-dependent suburbs: human socialization becomes defined by points of interaction (driving to the bowling alley, except you have no friends to bowl with), rather than transitory areas of interaction.

I didn't say that they were the same: I said that expressions of loneliness are stigmatized in men, and that we've developed social structures that create and enforce loneliness. They're separate points.

The stigma around loneliness doesn't as much cause loneliness as it ensures that the causes of loneliness can't be meaningfully ameliorated. To use a popular phrase: "the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem."

My lonely friend who moved away regularly says he is lonely, but also hasn't really made any new friends where he lives. They decided to move to another state where there are more people who speak his wife's native language, but neither of them know anyone there, despite living there for a couple of years now. Knowing you are lonely and telling others you are lonely doesn't help if you don't have a support network or community.

And if some females don't want to play house now that they can survive on their own, do you force them to play?

[0] https://www.who.int/data/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-a...

Seriously, assuming the problem of loneliness is 8% extra males born is naive to the point of harmfulness. The notions of "pairing" and "leftovers" have died decade ago, not to mention people come in and out given country. The problem in Korea is cultural, mental health stigma is strong, classism and the pressure to succeed is beyond ridiculous, your worth measured by how expensive a cat you drive, etc.

Who told you that “the progressive left” opposes that? The major marriage-related shifts in the last century were expanding marriage benefits to everyone (interracial, homosexual) and opposition was distinctly right-wing.

Now, perhaps this was code for rolling back equal rights so more women would be pressured to enter into or remain in unsatisfactory marriages but as we saw that’s a recipe for more rather than less unhappiness.

> Now, perhaps this was code for…

Yes, what they probably mean by “Encouraging people to marry and have committed monogamous relationships” is “stigmatize, vilify, and legally disincentivize or even prohibit things with don’t fall into ‘traditional’ monogamous (and presumably heterosexual) marriage.” Which many on the progressive left would indeed oppose.

I don't support doing that myself, but if you look at the US two of the demographics with the highest reproduction rates are Mormons and Hispanic Catholics. Both follow religious prohibitions against birth control. The progressive left firmly supports the right to an abortion as well as the right to use contraceptives so that answers your question.

From a demographic standpoint what's basically happening in the US is atheist liberals are wringing their hands and dying childless as various religious people produce the next generation that will replace them (Muslims have a very high birth rate too).

All that said, the article was about South Korea which has very different politics. In South Korea I don't think there is a big left/right divide over this and the main issue is probably that they're working themselves to death instead of having kids.

LDS fertility has dropped to replacement level rates. Church membership has been dropping, as well.

https://religionnews.com/2019/06/15/the-incredible-shrinking...

Latino birth rates have been declining as well-

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/58...

> Muslims have a very high birth rate too

Muslims are not a monolithic bloc.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/15/iran-bans-vase...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-01/while-asi...