If the dating game is already like this now, it’s scary thinking about how it’ll be 18 years from now
That's a natural result of only selecting for the 20% who know they can play the field. The "I deserve a prince with a high income" types are all in competition with each other for a limited resource. Men aren't to blame for that.
sounds like a whore to me.
I am missing something here... why? If the rate of single men in the US looking for a date has dropped, wouldn't a similar number (assuming majority straight relationships and monogamous pairings) of women be also single?
It’s not by choice
Isn't the result the same? More people are single? Or are we saying that more men have polyamorous relationships?
Seems to be this one.
The older men they are dating are not only dating younger women, or just one younger woman
I can see that continuing
Date many and often with no inhibitions, "have fun", don't get "tied down", delay marriage and family or abstain altogether, date men with little in common, date women, prioritise career, kids are disgusting and expensive, kids threaten your Instagram physique, pointless travelling > family, make easy money on OnlyFans, there's the psychological impact (distortion of standards) of having easy access to sex with very high quality men who would never "settle" for them in marriage, and do all of this with reckless abandon because if anyone is not enthusiastically supportive then the issue is with them not you and your sordid past.
It's little wonder so many women wake up one day, they're 38, single, childless, and depressed. The antidepressant usage among Western women is shocking.
I would argue that a very large contributing factor in our young men's disillusionment with dating is a product of the damage being done to our young women.
Maybe they really do think they're happy? I'm not convinced. That you could even begin to fill the void in your life where beautiful children and an adoring husband could be with brunch is an absurd and hopeless notion. I hope they snap out of it soon because their eggs are almost as poached as those atop their organic sourdough.
You are probably right that there is no direct impact, but there is an indirect society-wide impact, the video under discussion touches on that.
> I see lots of happy 35-45 woman doing brunches in mall.
Of all things you said, i agree only with the "distortion of standards" thing. Again, it's global, has nothing to do with the U.S. or "West" in general, happens everywhere - even more so in more vertical, traditional Asian cultures (with corresponding decline of birthrates). Yet, it's a problem i can see no solution for unless single parenthood is completely normalised (which might require elimination of religion).
I urge you to do more research
How? Would the government pay for surrogates for single men?
Unless by "single parenthood" you actually just mean "single motherhood", which hardly seems like the way to run a gender equal society.
It's already harder to raise kids with a nuclear family than the extended families of the past, atomizing further into single parents seems like another step backwards.
Can you please elaborate more on this conclusion? I agree with everything you said until that statement.
You have a few misconceptions on this topic. I will argue on user JesusLovesEwe's behalf because to me it is apparent that he and I concur and want to steer into the same direction, just for a (on the surface level) different motivation.¹ I hope he does not mind and I hope his and my courses of thought are as similar in reality as I assume they are.
You say we are "scared" by a non-traditional woman. That's wrong, the correct word is concerned. We indulge in our protector instinct and simply want women not come to harm.
You say we think women are "gullible and sheepish". That's wrong, the correct word is uninformed. What is happening in reality is that women simply do not know how destructive to themselves and society at large their behaviour is because they were never told what the real consequences are. They hence cannot learn from the bad example and avoid making the mistakes that damage themselves and others. A cultural narrative was created that even portrays the destructive behaviour in good light, I wish you were not complicit in propagating this.
You say we think of depriving women of agency. That's wrong, we want to educate, lay out the conclusions, and let them modify their behaviour by themselves. Persuasion, not force. An adult's agency must be informed by accurate information, so the cultural narrative of falsehoods mentioned before must be countered first, and I think that science is a great tool in that fight. If women knew what they will do their future selves, most of them would refrain from living out the destructive behaviour.
As an aside, the vast majority of people are not educated in psychology, and thus do not know why they behave the way they behave. The "some force" when it comes to intersexual dynamics is actually mostly instinct, a good deal of learned behaviour, and a little bit of rational thought. IMO the basics of this should be taught to everyone in school.
¹ With a username like that, I must assume he argues from a religiously informed moral angle, which in a sense I see as a shortcut of thought. If we go back in time and see how that doctrine was established, we would find society experimenting, recording, comparing and eventually propagating what works best (or perhaps a local maximum), optimising for stability/overall happiness. I, too, want people to be happy, or at least not fall into the trap of easily avoidable suffering.
Human values seem to have completely gone down the drain. Bravery, courage, chivalry and respect of elders. That marriage is a commitment and not to be taken lightly, and not to abandon your wife and kids.
Almost every day a new Twitter video comes out of dysfunctional children beating up on an elder for taking their toys away while cowardly students sit back and just watch.
Meanwhile women are being told that wanting to have kids and be a mother is just not enough or not desirable anymore. How can we think we are a modern society when women are the ones left raising children on their own when their partners leave them, or are the ones forced to “abort” children when they are put in a difficult position.
Maybe it is time to look at becoming Amish..
So things were better when brave men were happy to march into battle because their feudal lord ordered them to, and they fought to the death with other peasants over some pointless dispute between two warlords?
A man can be hooking up with many girls but he can only marry one at a time. Which means, it's a double-edged sword: Tinder raised standards of what an acceptable male looks like, making it equally harder for men to get laid as for women to get married.
Poor people have kids early and have more, while rich people delay and have few or none.
The more I read history, the more I realize most of the problems we have today are not new problems.
For example, in 1778, it was expected that you had to have 4 children to have one live to 18 (with medical science being what it was). We saw a 40% increase in all deaths in actuarial data during the pandemic which could align with degradation of services during that time.
In 1778, wages could never be lower than what it cost to feed and raise yourself and your children.
With the introduction of personal household debt and fiat currency, the guardrails were removed.
Business stopped having an incentive to pay fair wages when they were allowed to concentrate, and make more money through influential connections and shoddy financial engineering backed by a printing press.
Frankly I worry for my own young children. I almost wish there was a place to live where there was little to no social media, no chronic cell phone addiction, people out in nature, together, socializing, cooperating.