I think part of this issue is really exacerbated by most politicians being unwilling to acknowledge boys and young men are falling behind and have some real problems that they need help with. People feeling totally ignored and that their problems are invalid is how you get demagogues being elected across the west
> ...most politicians being unwilling to acknowledge...
Sadly, that's Political SoP for any group that both seems to be "society's current losers" and is not the current darling of some powerful ideological movement. Just ask poor women, Native American women, etc., etc., etc.
They aren't just "unwilling to acknowledge boys and young men are falling behind", they're actively pushing men down. Policies in the US for the last fifty years have generally targeted men.
We see that in the extreme cases, as men are expelled and imprisoned far more often, but it's also true in more subtle policies, like DEI.
Consider: even though young women outnumber men in universities 1.5 to 1, and do better, and even earn more, DEI still favors young women.
Their economic ranking has to drop unless women are kept out the ranking in the first place. The comments in the article by the men are pretty clearly about them believing women do not deserve to be there.
> Her boyfriend asked: “Did you have an affair with your boss?” He is now an ex-boyfriend.
and
> He thought household chores and child care were women’s work, and that women could not be leaders.
and
> In their analysis they found that young men were much more likely than young women to agree with statements such as “men should put career first, whereas women should put family first” and “when the economy is bad, female employees should be fired first.”
> The comments in the article by the men are pretty clearly about them believing women do not deserve to be there.
Part of the problem is that a more nuanced discussion is cancelled on the mainstream platforms, so many flock to echo chambers which tend to radicalize its members.
It's absurd that basically any advocacy of men's rights will get you shouted down as chauvinism. Feminists claim they fight for equal rights, but then are not willing to take any men issue AND are not willing to acknowledge any organization focusing on men's rights in principle.
The problem is not men's _rights_. It's men's _mental health_ and _education_. And, feminists do definitely support those things. But, when your answer to your problems is "We need more power" and you already have a really disproportionate amount of it then of course feminists are not going to be happy about that.
> The problem is not men's _rights_. It's men's _mental health_ and _education_.
Statements like these are a part of the problem. Of course I believe in your case you maed it in good faith, but it shows how much needs to be done.
One good example is obligatory military service, and the situation of men in Ukraine. While all women can freely escape the war, men have to suffer constant fear.
Also, the article starts with examples from Poland. You may notice there is a 5-year gap in retirement age between men and women while lifespan gap is ca 8 years. That is men, if they manage to retire, would enjoy only 7 years of their retirement while for women it's over 20 years. This is both sad and unfair, for many reasons.
> And, feminists do definitely support those things
In the same way prosecutors definitely support rights of the accused: notionally, but their hearts aren't really in it and they're motivated to look away.
Some would consider mental health and education as "rights". And there are examples of legal rights where men are at a disadvantage, e.g. instances of positive discrimination, parenting rights etc. These are all of course debatable, but feminists usually just dismiss any such discussion out of hand in principle.
> and you already have a really disproportionate amount of it
Citation Needed. We live in an absolute gynocracy, and nearly every current statistical data point, from college attendance, to graduation rates, to job placements, to career advancements, to legal favoritism, to divorce outcomes, to hours-adjusted compensation, to dating and relationship control, to transfer payments, to reproductive rights, to social services availability, to de facto legal presumption, to the production-consumption gap, to... ad nauseum, indicates this.
What is completely unacceptable is for people like you to pretend that we live in 1974, when claims like the above were true. The overcorrection has been fierce, rapid, and brutal in the last decade or two.
People like you need to look at a fucking calendar from time to time and realize that 20th century talking points don't apply anymore.
> And, feminists do definitely support those things.
Nah. They say they do, but they aren't actually willing to put any effort toward it and they shut down discourse when it is mentioned all the time in practice.
Until you acknowledge this, you're just contributing to misandry, indirectly.
Those quotes have been cherry-picked to give you that impression, so the article leads with outrage. I didn't think the Economist did that. Note that they sourced those quotes from a country which is still a more conservative society (for understandable reasons - not a criticsm). If they had quotes that bad from the US or the UK you can bet they'd have used them instead.
I wouldn't say they are completely made up, you could probably meet some people with such views but I'd say they're a small majority. But yeah, you don't tell your girlfriend she had an affair with her boss unless you're total jerk, so I'd say the author of the article used these figurative examples trying to demonstrate different outlooks without caring for realism that much.
A large cohort of young men with no skin in the game seems like bad news for any society, telling all those people they just have victim mentality seems dangerous and destabilizing
If we stopped disregarding men’s needs, wouldn’t they stop competing for resources? Given they’re the only demographic that provides results for their work, wouldn’t that tank the economy?
Think about it: What if men didn’t have the risk of being homeless?
Resource scarcity generally creates economic depressions, not growth. In general, something like a food shortage will cause people to freak out and try to horde whatever is left which causes commerce to start siezing up. This is why whenever it starts to happen the government comes in and injects a bunch of cash into the economy.
I have no idea what you mean by "The only demographic that provides results for their work".
Even from the perspective of creating competition for desirable outcomes, you want your workforce healthy and educated to be at their most productive. People are obviously going to be more productive when they're able to take care of themselves; they don't just stop caring about their lives once they have their most basic needs met, and even if your needs are being met, you have to continue to work to have your needs met.
When young men are falling behind on basically every metric, not hard to understand they feel resentment. Whatevers happening currently isn't working for most of us.
Career wise, dating wise, education wise...
And for women the progress they have made in the recent history, at least, feels like it has been working for them. So of course they vote for more of the same.
Well, it seems that equality movements have become near inseparable with shaming the generic man, and have gone beyond equality into tribalism. And this is true not just for gender "equality" either. All these movements, while originating from a place of good, have essentially become a political means to form cliques to grab a large piece of the capitalistic pie, where in reality we should be looking at how to take down traditional capitalism for the greater good for all.
> ...falling behind on basically every metric... [emphasis mine]
I'm thinking that some of the exceptions - domestic violence, workplace sexual harassment, feeling safe in public places, access to reproductive health care, etc. - are both very serious, and intense emotional button-pushers. Try asking a few good fathers of younger daughters for their own PoV on that kinda stuff?
Bigger picture - both the press and social media seem intent on casting the whole problem as a one-dimensional battle of the sexes. If a problem this complex can't be cast at least as "you want X, Y, and Z; they want U, V, and W" - then I'd figure that the folks controlling the conversation really want an endless angry fight and dystopian future.
You just mentioned a bunch of areas on which women have (fortunately) made incredible progress in the past few decades. Some of these achieved mostly by voting left-leaning. So it makes sense to me that women want to keep voting that way as they have seen progress.
To a very mild degrees, yes. If women feel themselves stuck in a society dominated by a one-dimensional, "war of the sexes" worldview, and their voting choices are similarly crap - then their less-bad option will kinda tend to look like "vote left-wing".
But (per Wikipedia) the "womens' vote" in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election was 54:41 for Clinton:Trump. Suggesting that any worldview or analysis that tries to treat women as some sort of monolith is utterly delusional.
Or maybe the pro-war factions on each side could try to reclassify women who voted "the wrong way" as "WINO's"?
EDIT: If this is insufficiently obvious - "to a very mild degree" refers to the voting patterns of women. Vs. all the rhetoric which seems to portray women as a monolith (which is blatantly counter-factual).
I sat with a bunch of older teens at lunch the other day that I've known for many years. About equal boys and girls and they only see each other on weekends. Some of them are obviously interested in one another.
They all were eating together but intently on their phones. I half seriously offered up money to each of them that could make it through the lunch without the phone in hand. No takers.
Its not a question of money. The underlying issue is much simpler (and harder to fix, this age is usually too late) - kids are hyper-stimulated by virtual worlds and instant social gratification, and then find real world utterly boring, have no clue how social aspects and communication work etc. Broken sad human beings. That's not something one can learn online, only via hard grind with other humans, over decades of continuous improvement. You know, just like we did it.
This is IMHO failure of parents - phones and digital media generally have no place till at least 15. Yes, in subpar communities this often means stigma. This doesn't change a nanometer the fact its very harmful, just look at what is being discussed. In better ones this is the norm for exactly this reason.
You know how good parenting looks like? Tons, gigatons of time, parents being role models to kids not due to stellar careers and meeting for 60 minutes a day, if at all, burned out. No phones or social media around. Its much much harder for the parents, but raising kids well is the most important achievement parent can achieve.
Anytime you see lazy parenting and good parenting results next to each other, the difference is staggering. The advantage well-raised kids will have later in life will be massive.
But the reality is that if you want achieve that, at least one of the parents has to sacrifice their career, at least temporarily but that usually means a dead end in the long run.
Without that there is just not enough time available in a dual working household, that is even after the kids have been dropped off to other people for most of the day (school, child care and the likes).
Historically this is what the women did and unlike the feminist rhetoric likes to pretend there were (and still are) very good reasons why this is the case.
Even if you find a woman making enough money and willing to have an at home husband, the risk of divorce will very little recourse for the man are so high it is really an extremely unappealing proposition for most man.
That is before talking about the psychological issues the women will display after enough years of being married to a "worthless man". I have experienced/observed that first hand, multiple times, and let me tell you nobody gets out that in good shape.
I am at the same time amused and amazed that they are still numerous willing man that are still talking the bullshit coming out of feminists and nowadays, society at large, at face value; even though careful observation would teach you otherwise.
Men and women are drifting appart, because while the propaganda would very much like you to believe otherwise, there is a very large value mismatch between man and women.
We have built an extensive set of bullshit qualifications and whatnot to pretend otherwise, but reality has this habit of catching up to lies and at some point, most of the interested parties figure out what's what.
> You know how good parenting looks like? Tons, gigatons of time,
While I agree, you just gave advice that is completely impractical to almost all of us. For most people driving the kids to school, doing all the tasks needed to get the money coming so that the bills can be paid, doing household chores and trying to share the tiny rest of the time between their[0] needs is already a success.
[0] That is, the kids, their partner, and themselves, each of these requiring something different.
We didn't even get to discussing the amount. It was a non starter. I'm sure some amount would have worked but really my main hope was to just snap them out of it and perhaps get a little reflection from them. Didn't work.
Parent but it's more complicated than that. They are friends of my daughter who passed 19 months ago. So there wasn't really that dynamic you describe. I genuinely feel they were able to freely consider and laugh off my idea.
Unrelated to the article: look at all of the reams of crap in the Economist’s cookie pop-up / disclaimer. Especially all of the 3rd parties they share your data with: Microsoft, Facebook, Adobe, etc… “Together with our 168 trusted partners…” It’s an abomination.
I have a pet theory that we are entering the “beautiful ones” phase of the unimpeded growth of humanity. Social media has accelerated a form of vanity that eclipses other needs such as survival and reproduction. That would lead to less interest in suitable mates. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-...
Looking at the responses here (so far) - I'd say the problem (with this topic on HN) is too many people with both heavy axes to grind, and instincts to treat "men" and "women" as simplistic monoliths.
You could get similarly poor discussion on other topics if people assumed that all c code is hopelessly insecure, and that all PHP code was written by a clueless noob in 1998, and that WordPress had no legit use cases, and ...
The problem is that "men's problems" not only is not where the money is, it often brings up discussions and ideas that actively go against the prevailing politics. Any person has a short-term gain to be had in disassociating themselves with this topic.
BTW, it would be great to have a rational discussion instead of intense downvoting on everything statement that doesn't fit another person's political ideology. Rather cowardly...
Using a fictitious scale that uses terms like “left” and “right,” the economist has constructed a fantastical narrative to goad their readers into obedience, sabotaging them from ever considering any other possible scenario than the one presented.
It's a weird article for sure. Written for an american audience I presume, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to point out that "many european elections offer a wide array of parties"
It's a shame really, could have been a more interesting article if it didn't try to make things black and white.
So, you disagree that the right and conservatives cling on to the older concepts, hierarchies, as well as racial and patriarchal structures of society, not because they have been proven as better, but because they had more control over women and people in general.
This is described as reactionary, a core element of the right; whereas the left wants societal progress, despite or because it breaks up old hierarchies and crusty structures, and gives people equal chances, empowers them through education, wants to set them free through collective ownership.
The whole political orientation is a scale, although not of two dimensions, but more, for example if we consider fiscal and corporate views.
But the terms left and right are definitely a valid spectrum and description of social progressivism vs. social conservativeness.
liberal largely does mean left in todays American political environment. Words mean what people think they mean, definitions change. Liberal certainly is completely disconnected from its original meaning today.
The same reason underlying reason why the US has the largest gap. Austalia is not a threat to anyone, The US is a dominant power hence it is the candidate for any psyop attack.
Not just a size thing, it's also the cultural hegemony provided by things like Hollywood, big IT companies, explicit cultural exports, etc.
Australia is fundamentally in the US-led Anglosphere, and debates that originate in the US eventually flow to Canada, Australia, NZ, the UK, and to a lesser degree much of the US-aligned world (e.g. SK, Japan, Israel).
I think it makes a lot of sense for another superpower like China or Russia to "go to war" via social division rather than kinetic war. They couldn't succeed at a kinetic war, so the only alternative is to work to weaken or dismantle a country from within by sowing division amongst the population and manipulating the economy.
I don't think it is a theory. We have now decades of documented reports that Russia is targeting the USA sowing social discord. They don't care about any specific outlook, they will support both extreme right and extreme left as long as there is social conflict and polarization.
Kids should be learning about these things at school, they need to recognize attempts at polarizing, creating conflict, and make them perceive other members of their own society as enemies. Both young and older people are vulnerable as these "trolls" (which is not an appropriate name any longer btw) use some real social problems as a starting point and escalate them. And they're extremely successful in part because of social media apps algorithms that effectively act as amplifiers of extreme content.
Conspiracy theory? I was under the impression it's very well documented. Might not be everything, but you can see how a few million posts from troll farms/bots would sway the narrative to more extreme, and even the real people disagreeing might be doing so because they read a few too many of those posts.
Not surprising, and the article completely ignores a more systemic cause: technology, especially advanced technology like computers and AI, is making people more and more independent in general.
People simply need each other less and less. Yes, we still need each other for love and companionship, but even that is being mitigated somewhat by AI boyfriends and girlfriends, and AI therapists. True, AI right now cannot replace a human and maybe it never will, but it does lessen the need here and there. It piles upon a long tradition of replacing human beings.
And when men and women don't need each other as much in particular, they will more likely see their differences as annoyances rather than strengths.
Yes, perhaps equality, feminism, and other movements might have changed some things. And I think equality is a great thing. But what we have to put into context is that equality movements today are not about equality in general, but about making everyone has an equal an opportunity as possible in furthering technology.
Personally, I think we have long passed the point of DIMINISHING RETURNS in technology. Is 5G really going to help us more than 4G or 3G, except to feed us more of the mental drug of media to distract us from the real problems of the world? Will AI do much more than reduce the sense of value people have from their creative jobs?
The real problem is that technologists happily push advanced tech forward for the sake of their intellectual amusement and profit, and the only measure of value is short-term profit. Ordinary people simply play the prisoner's dilemma to keep up, and as a result, they have to function as cogs in a machine, divorced from the need from other human beings in a community.
Is it no wonder that the institution of men and women getting together to help each other has taken a back seat to a new and vicious battle to the top of the meaninglessness of global, capitalistic society? Yes, older societies may not have been perfect. But the new alternative is another step in the wrong direction.
A lot of articles on this, never the truth. The truth being most women are chasing the top 10% of men. Not all women, but the internet has exacerbated this phenomenon.
not attractive per se. the OKcupid reports found that men are willing to message a very wide variety of women, even ones they don't rank highly in appearance, while women tend to rank most men as unattractive and do not interact with them.
put more bluntly, dudes will try to bang 3's but hope for 9's.
Statistically this is proven false. Find the OKCupid research on women rating men (and the other way around) and you'll find that women do indeed rate only the top percentages of men (afaik top 20% or so) as above average. Wheres men rating women is more of a normal distribution.
Presuming that “rate as attractive” and “chase” are the same thing for both genders, equally. There are many differences in dating patterns between genders, not just how they rate each other in attractiveness.
If we really want to dig in here, women and men don’t even “chase” at the same rates.
It's almost as if there is something in a men that makes him not completely delusional and less susceptible to emotional bullshit rationalisation.
Some day we, as a society, will rediscover the truth about women. One should note, that nature at large do not really forget this reality, and there is a lot to learn in observing the female/male behavior in animals.
Just observing trends I see around messaging, reddit conversations, twitter and policy...this appears to be by design.
I can't begin to imagine the games that billionaires and other various cabals play in influencing policy over the years, but from my own observation it seems to be intentional.
EDIT: Since this is generating some conversation, I'll add more detail. The article is actually quite good at explaining a lot of the details.
My own observations over the last 20 years, I've seen what appears to be consorted interest in breaking up institutions that bring communities together.
Public schools are a big one as there are enough differences of opinion on policy, rules, funding approaches, discipline, levels of control from the school itself, to parents, to school boards, to state governments, to the department of education. Public schools used to be a point of pride for communities and currently they are a point of conflict.
Churches are another where people in a community would actively come together to learn to be better people, serve their community and serve each other with a higher cause. They also created wonderful environments for youth activities outside of school. Attacks on church communities have been fairly relentless online doing as much as possible to influence people away from them. Legislatures even got in on the action during Covid too.[3]
The concussion scare amplification around football in particular in the US did a ton of damage to the sport, despite women's soccer actually being the most dangerous sport for concussions.[1] This had an outsized effect on participation in youth football, which does more to positively influence young men and communities in general than any other sport in the US due to the diversity of participants, body types, different position jobs, roles and the need for everyone to work together as a unit to find success. Some advocates is even trying to ban it outright in California, but the governor shot it down.[2] High school football coaches are also put in great positions to act as both coaches, counselors and father figures for many young men who do not have them. The roster sizes of football teams go a long way towards making this one of the US's greatest community institutions.
This continues at the college level until recently and we just saw the greatest coach in the history of the sport, Nick Saban, retire and speak at the capital about why. He used to be able to help prepare young men for success in life. Now all anybody cares about is money.
There's more of course, but it's a seemingly intentional trend where the pattern that I see is institutions that bring communities together being attacked or turned into something divisive.
That's one theory, how about the theory that we've just built massive confirmation bias media devices, that take everyone's attention, convincing them that they are always right about everything, never need to challenge any core assumptions about life or romance, and any romantic partners that challenge their thinking are wrong for them and they deserve better anyway.
Now what if Billionaires made money from people using those devices more and more, and hired the smartest and most capable people on the planet to find out to get people to use those devices more and more. What would that mean?
I would say state actors, not billionaires have access to tools (TikTok) that are used to disrupt the fabric of Western societies. There is a reason why some social media tools are banned in China, and Iran - because they are actively used for psychological warfare (by China, Iran). Despite the article talking about China as well, it's just a cross-pollination of ideas across continents(they are getting the taste of their own poison).
I used to believe this is all tinfoil wackos ideas, but the last 6 months opened my eyes.
Are you suggesting that there is some conspiracy that the billionaire class is undertaking to do this intentionally?
I think the answer is much more simple. Social media creators and platforms thrive off of engagement, and narratives that prey on people’s insecurities are highly effective at keeping people engaged and glued to their phones rather than having productive social lives.
You seem to like Occam's Razor, so what about this explanation: look at who benefits. You double the workforce (and so get to halve salaries and increase productivity due to competition), you cut down the birth rate, and you get worker bees who are ideologically motivated by fighting for their favorite cause, and so aren't looking to change anything about the employer-employee relationship. If you are a billionaire, sponsoring some talking heads to achieve this seems like a no-brainer.
And by the way, this doesn't mean I am saying "women should go back to being women" or anything like that. The billionaire class didn't turn women into men. They turned both women and men into sexless worker bees.
It doesnt need to be a conspiracy, it is a group of very powerful people, with similar interests based on their class. A class who happens to need another class to continue working/making babies to ensure their way of life doesnt collapse.
That sounds like a great plot line for a story, but why is the more simple answer wrong?
Moreover, why would anyone actively and maliciously need to espouse those viewpoints when there are perfectly explainable reasons for those viewpoints to circulate naturally?
I know there are many influencers are associated with certain powerful and funded groups, but the majority of people parroting these viewpoints are not related.
I never said the more simple answer is wrong, im explaining why it doesnt need to be a conspiracy.
You are also assuming "actively and maliciously," thats not necesarily the case. Of course the best lie has a grain of truth.
The majority of people need to get their words to parrot from somewhere. This is where the powerful and funded groups come in, money gives your message more reach.
Maybe not billionaires but in the past "activists" like Glroria Steinem were confirmed CIA operatives. These days they are called "influencers" but quiet probable still state funded.
I am suggesting that there are people who want things this way, yes.
Over the last 20 years especially, it seems there are similar interests going after institutions that often bring communities together, schools, churches, sports, etc. The more isolated people are from their local community, the more they are driven online where social media and forums will have more influence.
When you step back and look at everything that goes on, it's hard to ignore and the result is people who are more detached with fewer friends, isolated and lonely.
There are, but not for the reasons the root comment was suggesting. I don’t think billionaires want people to hold extremist views about the opposite gender. I think that’s even against their best interests in many cases. But some groups do push a narrative that unintentionally makes people feel isolated. I think this is more a side effect than a directly intended effect.
The cynic in me thinks that some young men are disappointed that the patriarchy is falling, partly because (young) women are more empowered and self-determined, and they no longer own women. Which is a good thing.
The symptoms described are different but the end result (polarisation and self-segregation) reads very much like the situation in many (western, and other) countries 100 years ago.
Maybe a cycle is starting and this is a sign of the first 'dip' heading back towards the starting condition?
If by "drifting apart" you mean feminists screaming "kill all men!" at rallies, young women laughing "we don't need men for anything" at interviews, and young men observing what happens to older men in divorce court, and seeing the stats revealing how utterly disinterested and incapable modern women are of pair bonding anymore.
Suicides at up 37% in 20 years, 80% male. 90% of women are hopelessly addicted to hormonal birth control, stunting their sexual maturity. Single motherhood and sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise. Women keep voting for more taxes and foreign handouts while doing none of the difficult labor to pay for it, and men, who are being told they are useless and repulsive are left wondering what incentive they have to work nor date at all.
Birth rates are plummeting, fertility has halved in a few decades, antidepressant prescriptions skyrocketing. This is the end of western civilization as we know it. An entire generation of young people - currently our most scarce resource - are being lost to women literally rebelling against their own nature, not caring about being wives nor mothers, shouting "oppressive patriarchy!" at every opportunity, all the while out clubbing and giving premarital sex for free to a few select men, and producing pornography to fund irresponsible lifestyles.
I've had a front row seat watching this unfold throughout the course of my entire life, which began with my mother destroying my family and blaming my dad for it, while she herself made my growing up life a living hell. My dad's second woman cheated and left, so my oldest sibling is in the same boat. I watched my mom blow up her second marriage as well. Every single woman I've dated has been clinically insane, cheating, and promiscuous beyond belief - first I thought I might be the problem, but then I saw the stats. It's everyone's problem, and women aren't going to fix it.
We're on a fast track to extinction, accelerating. Women are out of control. They can't control themselves, and refuse to be controlled by any man, encouraging each other on social media to abandon boyfriends, divorce husbands, get cosmetic surgery, and ultimately die alone, unloved, and medicated out of their gourd.
This entire tirade is unhinged and filled with insane claims and trash science.
> giving premarital sex for free to a few select men
Is your problem with this that women are having sex? Or that they aren’t prostituting themselves? Or perhaps the problem that they aren’t having sex “with you”?
> Women are out of control. They can't control themselves, and refuse to be controlled by any man
Control themselves from what exactly? The examples you give are breaking up with/divorcing a spouse, getting cosmetic surgery and dying alone. The biggest problem you have with women, it seems, is that women are fully autonomous human beings.
> Every single woman I've dated has been clinically insane, cheating, and promiscuous beyond belief - first I thought I might be the problem, but then I saw the stats. It's everyone's problem, and women aren't going to fix it.
Stats? What stats?
> 90% of women are hopelessly addicted to hormonal birth control, stunting their sexual maturity.
Literally not possible. Are these the stats that you keep talking about?
> This entire tirade is unhinged and filled with insane claims and trash science.
Which claims are insane and trash science? Because I've looked these up. For example, I said that "Suicides at up 37% in 20 years, 80% male." and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clearly lists [1] (Data Table: Suicide Rates) the rate was 10.4 per 100k people in 2000, and 14.1 per 100k in 2021. 14.1 divided by 10.4 gives 135.57, an increase of 35.57% in 21 years.
> Is your problem with this that women are having sex? Or that they aren’t prostituting themselves? Or perhaps the problem that they aren’t having sex “with you”?
The problem is that every sexual partner a women has decreases her odds of successful marriage. The Institute for Family Studies [2] (Figure 1) clearly shows a correlation between a woman's premarital sex count and her divorce rate. She literally loses the ability to pair bond.
Prostitution is a very strong word. What I mean by "free" is that they're not securing commitment before giving it up, and ending up with no commitment (marriage). Nice try with the ad hominem. The National Survey of Family Growth [3] lists the number of lifetime sexual partners for sexually experienced men at 6.3; I lost count around a dozen years ago so no, I'm definitely not "unhinged" because "I'm not getting any". Try again.
> Control themselves from what exactly? The examples you give are breaking up with/divorcing a spouse, getting cosmetic surgery and dying alone. The biggest problem you have with women, it seems, is that women are fully autonomous human beings.
Control themselves from spreading their legs without commitment. Control themselves from fleeting negative emotions. Control themselves from destroying families over social media propaganda. Control themselves from permanently mutilating their bodies for vanity.
If being a "fully autonomous human being" means "self-destructing to extinction" then yes, perhaps thinking that women are capable of being fully autonomous humans beings is indeed the grand mistake. No human being is fully autonomous. We are all halves of a whole, and part of larger society. Women seem hell-bent on denying all that, to everyone's detriment.
> Stats? What stats?
The UK Mental Health Foundation [4] finds that "Women between the ages of 16 and 24 are almost three times as likely (26%) to experience a common mental health issue as males of the same age".
The 2018 General Social Survey [5] noted that 28% of young men aged 18-29 did not have sex within the past year, while the corresponding stat for women was 18%. Meaning, more women are having sex with less men -> women are more promiscuous. This corroborates my personal experience in dating.
> Literally not possible. Are these the stats that you keep talking about?
The 2017 rate of birth control among women was 64.9% [6]. It has only gone up following the "sexual liberation" and "fuck around and find out" attitudes. Nearly all women I've dated had a hormonal birth control implant. I can't find conclusive and up-to-date numbers, maybe 90% is slightly high an estimate, but it seems realistic to me.
Nice try, try again. I've now staked my claims in excruciating detail. If you're trolling, nice job wasting my time looking all this up for the umpteenth time.
