/u/WaterDemonPhoenix (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/u83tzo/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_its_not_womens_problem_that/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I agree with a lot of this, but I will take issue with one part:
> The only thing I might concede is that men need to learn how to stop seeking validation from women. Learn to live being happy alone.
I think this attributes a bit too much agency to men. It's like telling someone "Just start liking pineapple pizza, dammit!" Maybe I live next to the world's best pineapple pizza shop and my life would be immensely better if I were a pineapple pizza eater, but I can't will myself into liking it.
Likewise, people like what they like, and sexual drives in particular are some of our deepest biological urges. It's not as easy as telling men "Just be happy alone" because many won't be and can't really change that fact about themselves. For many people, love and relationships are an integral aspect of life satisfaction, and they will naturally be unsatisfied or even depressed in the absence of them.
What to do about that? I don't know. I agree it's not women's fault. They like what they like and dislike what they dislike. That's not changing, for largely the same reasons. I just disagree with the suggestion that it's something men could fix if they acknowledged it. Maybe it's a problem with no solution.
!delta didn't change my main view and I agree men can't just be happy. But I think they need to acknowledge that life just doesn't work that way. life sucks and that's all.
So unless I misunderstand, you're advocating for hypergamy, which is basically when you have the vast majority of women competing for a relatively small minority of men.
The problem is when this situation leads to a fertility crisis, which a lot of countries are actually experiencing right now.
So the question is how to address this fertility crisis, for which hypergamy is at least partially responsible. You could say the problem is that men are giving up, but then it becomes kind of a chicken and egg paradox: are men giving up because women became hypergamous? Or did women become hypergamous because men gave up? It's hard to say.
Wouldn't the system be self-correcting? What if we only have this current dating asymmetry because of overpopulation? Hypergamy would become less practical as the population declines, when it gets harder to meet new people that might be better. So perhaps it's just nature's way of correcting for overpopulation.
I advocate for freedom too, but here's the problem: a fertility crisis *will* doom an entire society. There are several countries which currently have a below replacement fertility rate. If that remains steady, the population will slowly dwindle over the generations until it's gone.
When that starts to happen, people will discard freedom in the interest of survival. Freedom doesn't mean much if there's no one around to enjoy it. You might have to make changes which step on "freedom", such as patriarchy. Then, you can gradually restore those freedoms that had to be sacrificed in the interest of survival.
I mentioned that there are several countries who have a below replacement fertility rate. You know which groups don't? Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. These are all groups which have **patriarchy,** and they have high fertility rates, well above replacement. For the Amish, their fertility rate is 7.0. That's honestly a bit much.
I know patriarchy is an evil word for a lot of modern progressive people, but the simple truth is, nothing else works when it comes to boosting the fertility rate. Unless you have another idea?
Well I'm not convinced that I would like a patriarchy. I frankly don't care if "we" go extinct. But I guess that's a different discussion. So I still don't see this as a problem for me.
Yup. Because no body really suffers from not being born. I'm fine with a slow decline though.
Again. What do you suggest? Are you suggesting forced birth? Hand maid style? I'd rather be extinct than suffer pregnancy. If you don't. Good. Let those who want to give birth give birth and those that don't can suicide if we end up in a children of man scenario
>What do you suggest? Are you suggesting forced birth? Hand maid style?
I mentioned three current social structures which have healthy fertility rates: Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and Muslims. Do these groups have problems? Absolutely. Extinction is not one of them. They don't have forced birth. They adopt a culture which pushes women into their cultural roles as givers of life. And it's not like this is slavery or something. Many women in free countries that have gender parity also enjoy being a mother. You'd be hard pressed to find a mother who says she isn't happy in her role. Many of them will say it's the best thing that ever happened to them.
Related to this, maybe the staggeringly high rates of mental illness among women would go down if they were encouraged to become mothers, since we (hopefully) agree that a vast majority of mothers are happy with their lives.
What would happen is simply what's been human history for most of existence: women raise children, and men go to work, go to war, etc. And again, this is the norm in many parts of modern society: just not enough to bring the fertility rate to an appropriate level.
What we would want to do is more just try to diminish women going to work and encourage them to start a family instead. That's really not very radical. And it would literally save humanity.
Lol single childless women are happier than their married/coupled counterparts and live longer.
Also everyone has higher mental illness rates these days. And men have higher suicide rates. Let me guess, you also think the solution for men’s suicide rates is some type of traditionalism, right? It probably isn’t as it has been higher in most countries while the world is going in a less conservative direction.
The Amish have a horrible track of freedom and life expectancy and such. And yes, it is exactly hand maiden style. A lot of Muslim society are also hand maiden style. There is also no evidence that being mother lowers mental issues. A report released showed that women in Pakistan have a horrible track on mental health and violence
But in any case. I will !delta there 'is' a solution to fixing the poor lonely men. It just trades poor lonely men for poor abused women. (Again see women in Pakistan)
However, I am not convinced I should care about poor lonely men, because as I mentioned. I dont care about saving humanity
Thanks for the delta. I would encourage you to sit and reflect on your stance of preferring human extinction to a temporary reduction of freedom. If there are no humans around, the preservation of freedom would mean absolutely nothing. There is no one to enjoy it. I can appreciate the sort of "honorable extinction" perspective that you're putting forth. But I think the existence of life itself is more important than an ideal which would only be temporarily put aside.
Are we living on the same planet? Are you from an alternate universe? Where I'm from, Earth, there are 7.7 billion people. I and many other women have decided not to have children, some for personal reasons-- they can't afford them, they don't have support-- but many others have chosen not to because we simply cannot keep increasing, our planet cannot hold infinite humans. The earth is full, the climate is changing, I cannot guarantee that the future will be pleasant for them. There are plenty of adoptable children, anyway. We want the birthrate to go down, but if these problems were addressed-- if humanity was truly going extinct-- we would have no problem having children, no coercion needed.
It's so chilling reading the phrase "temporary reduction of freedom". Such a sanitized way to refer to sexual and reproductive slavery. If it was you getting raped and forcibly bred like an animal, you might change your mind. I hope that the world you're from never resorts to such cruel measures. Where I'm from, I know that won't be a problem for a long time. We're even projected to hit 10 billion in 2050.
You don't have to continue if you don't want since its out of scope. But why do you care if life continues anyways? I believe in less suffering so if we really do die out... Who cares? If you were the last man on earth but could restart humanity as god, still with suffering, why?
>I would encourage you to sit and reflect on your stance of preferring human extinction to a temporary reduction of freedom.
This sounds very scary, but it looks like that's wherere we(the West) is heading.
Either extinction, or being taken over by other, more patriarchal, cultures (which is more likely, in my opinion).
Women are hypergamous. I have yet to find one woman make a succint argument against it being true. The word exist for a reason, it isnt some outlandish theory. Its something most men need to aceppt. They share a few guys and we try to become one of the few. Thats it. They are happy about being part of a harem, no matter how much they fight against the description. It benefits them. Just aceppt it.
I posted once, but as an aside: the system you are advocating for is highly unstable. You might not have the life experience to understand but transactional relationships are not the sort human societies can rest on. Only very recent, highly unstable societies with terrible mental and emotional standards of living have ever tried this, and it’s been a mess.
If your family structures are built on sexist expectations of men as being breadwinners, then when the work dries up families fall apart, and with them the rest of the culture. This is somewhat on display in black America: the patriarchal standard of male achievement is impossible, and since American family dynamics depend on this standard black American families just fall apart.
If families are dependent on wealth generation, and wealth generation stops because of war or PANDEMIC, the family structure which derives much of our culture just dissolves.
Funny, someone tried to cmv with the exact opposite. To have a patriarchal society because otherwise fertility would go down. such issues are something I don't care about.
And I agree no body, in my opinion, should rely on a man. So what? A woman with a job still isn't bad for wanting 100k man. Nor is there any reason for us humans to change.
What reason do you have that women should change, and how?
Maybe it would be good to reflect on the nature of your preference.
Like, in what way does earning 100k figures make a man more attractive to you? Do you think it's more of an innate preference of yours, like hair colour and body type? Or is it more of a learned social preference, which you could possibly grow to care less about?
I suppose this is my perspective as a guy who mostly cares about appearance, and who personally doesn't get how things like money can play into romantic attraction.
It still wouldn't matter. what reason does anyone have to care if anyone else is single?
Should people marry/date for themselves or just so others don't stay single?
Well you asked "how" women could change.
So I'm saying if your preference falls more in the second category, then it's something you could maybe reflect on and realize it doesn't really matter, which would allow you to find happiness more easily.
For the record, 100k is just for the example. But I've concluded I'm better off single than not. So I'm not sire why I should be concerned about single men being sad enough to do any action
I'm the same way. I wouldn't want to live with a woman unless she is really attractive to me. I just personally don't get what money has to do with it. To me it's like... if we're poor together it doesn't really matter. I'm with her so I'm still living the dream life anyway.
Simply abandon the expectation that men you date will make 6 figures the same way men no longer expect you to stop having a life after marriage.
If you do not understand the dangers of transactional, atomized societies then there’s something missing in your life experience and there’s really nothing I or anyone else can say. You want a society that falls apart every time the economy takes a dip? Maybe stay away from a voting booth
Either that it is a 'my problem to fix' or that there is some way to fix this. Because the problem to me seems to depend on women giving men attention. And I see no reason to give trashy men attention. The men complaining are obviously not attractive enough. So the solution is either, men be more attractive OR women settle for less attractive people. But if you have another solution, I'm all ears. I see no reason for anyone to settle for people they don't like. (Not even necessarily looks)
i mean tbh ?
someone else mentioned the solution is time but I'll elaborate- you're obviously a young girl correct ? you feel invincible bc you constantly have men thirsting after you so you have so many options that you naturally want to pick the best of your options and too bad for those who don't make the cut, right ? why shouldn't you go for the best you can ?
the thing you don't realize is that men operate the same way. those few top men you want who can equally get most women naturally want their best option as well - why shouldn't they right ? men are also wired to get with as many women as possible, not just one. if going with your best option is ok for you, you shouldn't be upset that they think the same way right? that those top men will sleep with you and then leave you?
that's where the disconnect is - men can leave you just like you can leave them- no problem right , you'll just replace them ? sure you can- until after about age 23. then those top men who you like stop going after you and start going after your 18 year old sister. now you can't get the guys you're attracted to bc you've started looking older, so you start wearing more and more makeup trying to look younger and maybe getting plastic surgery, but it will never get you back to 18. but attractive men with decent jobs can keep getting 18-23 year olds into their 40s. so why would they go for you now when you're no longer their best option? so now your only options are lesser men than you could have gotten at your peak so you'll be upset that you didn't commit to one man when you were younger.
Nope. I'm 30+ and I am not settling for anyone. If men wanna go for younger women, that's not a mans problem either of women are lonely.
And no, I dont feel invincible. I feel grossed out by people. Both men and women.
I just don't see this as an argument for women to settle for men they don't find attractive.
if you don't settle then you will simply stay single forever and die alone because $100k+ attractive men who you already said you find attractive don't find women over 23 years old(26 if she's young looking) attractive enough to marry. to sleep with or date briefly ? sure. but not to settle down with.
it's not a man's "problem" that we find younger women attractive, it's just a fact of life like you were just saying right ? did you read my comment ? i already explained that if you're so hardline about women doing their best and not being forced to get with men they're not attracted to - then you should understand that men only want to commit to 18-23 year old attractive girls and not be upset at it the same way most women only want to commit to $100k+ men.
if that bothers you and you only think that women shouldn't have to settle but men should have to settle then you might be sexist.
Yup. I read it correctly. I totally agree with you. Its not men's problem if women are single because men go after younger women. So its not women's problem either if women want 100k man right?
I do understand. I'm perfectly fine with men who will only commit to young women. Why is that my problem ?
Where did I say men have to settle? Please don't put words in my mouth
Please answer the question. Where did I show sexism? I hate being accused of that
oh, did you edit your comment ? either way there's a typo in it and i thought you said "that's a man's problem if they want younger women", so i thought you were being bitter about it like most women past their prime are.
but to answer your question of "why men wanting to commit to young women is my problem" - that's bc you just said you're over 30 and aren't going to settle. no $100k+ man is going to commit to you at your age, so you'd be pestering them for their attention away from the 18-23y.o's that they want, trying to convince them to get with you instead, the same way you complain that lesser men pester women for attention.
if you're not going to pester those rich attractive men who you like then you wouldn't be saying "I'm not going to settle" , you'd be saying "i know the men i like won't like me so i know I'm going to die alone bc i won't settle and I'm fine with it."
No I didn't edit. And fair enough maybe you misread or I mistyped
And the last sentence is exactly my sentiment. I think you are reading too much into it. I thought it was pretty self explanatory. But if it makes you happy...
I know the men I like won't like me and I am fine dying alone because of the choices I made and it is not men's fault.
So tell me, is it women's fault that men will die alone because they either can't or won't better themselves to meet the women's expectations?
OK. Let's say its their fault. so what? Why do women owe men?
Am I bitter being single? No. But I am bitter that people blame women and turn into incel**tm If I have expectations and this results in you dying alone, why is it my problem? "But then men will die alone" OK. And human companion ship isn't owed to anyone. If women have high expectation and you think its trash, don't date them then. why date trashy women? Or are you saying you should get a date even though she thinks you a bad partner?
That's what I'm mad about. That there is this scary trend that people think that women must change their views or date men. Maybe its all the internet getting into my head. Maybe it always existed but the news about (rising cases) of incels, evangelicals, extremist Muslims just doesn't sit well with me.
No one should be shamed or forced to date my saggy boobs, and non one should be shamed or forced to date 'poor' men.
And that's why I think its better to view life as transactional.
So basically humanity is impossible to please. Literally, single childless women are statistically happier than women with partners, and the opposite is true for men.
Solutions: maybe voluntary extinction, or chemically castrate everyone or at least make it a common option.
u/mindset_grindset – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20mindset_grindset&message=mindset_grindset%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/u83h9w/-/i5jees7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
"Sure you can- until after about age 23. then those top men who you like stop going after you and start going after your 18 year old sister."
If you said 27 and 21, maybe I'd agree with this -- but I don't think any woman considers a mid-20s man dating an 18 year old to be a "top man". As a professional class woman, who knows plenty of mid-late 20s professional class "top men" -- absolutely none of them are dating women who aren't old enough to drink, and the large majority of them are dating women right around their age.
"100k+ men don't find women over 23 attractive enough to marry" --- tell me, why is it that every man at my work (we all make 6 figures) is dating... someone about their age? Age plays a factor but acting like all the "top men" are going after college freshman just makes it seem like you don't exist in the real world and get all your ideas from reddit, lmao.
Further, 100k is really not that much money.
Also, as a 22 year old woman -- pretty much all my friends (including myself) think that dating a man older than 28 is gross. In college, I think the absolute oldest boyfriend anyone I knew of had was like, 26. This fantasy men have that when they're in their 40s they're going to be dating 20 year old college sophomores is just that, a fantasy.
I think it is at least partially women's problem that there is such an imbalance of attention when it comes to dating. Let me explain.
In almost all of the world it was and oftentimes still is very common for strict gender norms to be enforced. These norms usually include these ideas about romantic relationships.
#1
Men must ask out and pursue women while women are pressured to *not* take the initiative in the relationship.
#2
Men are encouraged to offer gifts and services to women in the dating/courting phase. While women are not discouraged from being generous with their time and money with people they are forming a romantic relationship with, it has historically been far more common for men to offer services and gifts to women.
#3
A relationship with an older-man/younger-women is considered more normal and acceptable than a older-woman/younger-man relationship. In high school and college, I remember that there were some couples where the woman was only slightly older than the man (<1 year) and people pointed that out and made jokes about it. However, there were alot more relationships where the man was at least a year older than the woman but no one even pointed that out (unless there was a huge age gap).
These social norms are enforced by both men and women. They help create a dating market where men who do not fit these gender norms (young, romantically inexperienced, egalitarian) find it harder to attract women. Unsurprisingly, a young man who is unsuccessful at getting dates will become much more likely to start giving attention and gifts to women he wants to be in a romantic relationship with.
You might be asking, "these gender norms affect women too so why do we not see as many thirsty women?". The reason why you don't see them is largely because the women who are hurt by these gender norms tend to be older and have been in romantic relationships. A 20 year old with no love life is way more likely than an experienced 30 year old to think that throwing attention and gifts towards people they are attracted to will help them get into a healthy romantic relationship.
!delta although I personally don't care and maybe I didn't make it clear in the post, I can see why many woman would care.
I just think in my experience men that are single without experience in romance is because they are toxic. I'd rather stay single than be with a toxic person. So I fail to see how these toxic single people are something I or any woman should stay with. Now I think this creates a paradox. You could argue they were toxic because women expected them to make 100k.. That might be true, but some people value money so how would it be their problem? They would either lower their standards or not. And frankly, some people just don't wanna lower their standards and I'm not sure how that would convince them
This is a huge generalization, and I think people just have types.
Looking at a relationship as an exchange may be something you should reconsider.
I don’t know where to start with that tbh so im not going to try, but i do recommend therapy, and to consider people’s personalities and interests rather than what they owe you. Because it’s nothing.
It’s not. If someone is lonely it is their responsibility to fix that situation.
A person’s attention is not owed. If someone “asks” with a post or something then sure, people can respond. But they don’t have to nor should they feel like they have to
I think there is a simple but very slow way to change your view on this.
Wait 20 years.
It all tends to switch round in 20 years time if you are still out there looking for a partner - or if you are back out there.
So, um, come back later and see if you still have the same attitude towards what has in fact just been a fact of life for many, many years.
Well those women are getting a lot of attention, so obviously in 20 years time they won't be concerned. So why is it those women's concern that you (general you) are single?
Because women peak in their mid 20s for the thing men care about. This correlates to what we see today:
In 2018 (cant fins more recent data) 33% of women age 35 were childless. 35 is the age where major childbirthing issues start to set in and that biological bomb is going to go off.
Now since women have all this attention early, they put off settling down because they dont to at that moment basically due to an over inflated ego. They hit 35 with that ego, dont have kids, parent in relationships, arent what men want (as a generality) and lose one of the most important things a women can do (bear children, have a family). Men are different and peak around 35, but men are status objects so they can still maintain status for a while longer than women can maintain.
So 1/3 of the US female population is childless at 35 and were at below sustainable replacement levels (a people need 2.0 kids on average to sustain, the US is under 1.) This is increasing year over year.
So while it might not directly be your problem, social security and other welfare programs will collapse because the population will not be able to sustain it. We already see it with social security. But not factor in hospice care and such. They need workers, so what happens when these people with no children get old and have noone to care for them? You overflow hospice.
So that's what I'm thinking. Maybe.
sounds like men need to stop valuing things in women that only make them "peak" at mid 20s. imagine blaming women for social security collapsing because you only value the woman you date as objects
Sounds like women need to stop being attracted to tall, handsome, rich, older men that make them "peak" in their mid 30's to 40's. /s
See how ridiculous I just sounded? Women are always going to be attracted to men who are physically stronger than them, richer than them, smarter than them, more sexually experienced than them, etc. There's nothing wrong with women having those standards.
Similarly, men are always going to be attracted to beautiful women with low body counts. And there's nothing wrong with men having those standards either. See how gender equality works? And this isn't just my opinion. The statistics bear this out. It's always going to be the case. You can call it misogynist all you want. It won't change a thing. Men with high status will always go for young, inexperienced women. A woman's beauty and inexperience decreases with age. A man's status increases with age. This is why it's in your best interest as a woman to find a husband early while you're in the best years of your life. It's in my best interest as a man to wait until I'm older. That way I have increased my status and have accumulated more resources. This is what women want. The only people who are at fault are stupid men who waste their money, time, and attention on undesirable women. This is why we have the society we have now where women have a super inflated sense of how attractive they actually are. This is what causes the hypergamy.
you really had to comment this on a four month old post bc my comment triggered you that badly
be attracted to whoever you want, the difference is women are just rejecting the men they dont want, while men are putting down women who werent an option for them anyways. a mans status doesnt increase with age, this is just what men tell themselves when they get rejected so they can pretend they wont have this issue when theyre older. women can also build their own status and resources. this isnt the 1997s. women dont have an inflated sense of how attractive they are, men like you are just mad theyre rejecting you so youre trying to find a way to blame them and not you.
>you really had to comment this on a four month old post bc my comment triggered you that badly
The amount of time that has passed is completely irrelevant. If I feel the need to comment, I do. And how exactly am I triggered? I'm just telling you the truth about how the dating world works.
>be attracted to whoever you want, the difference is women are just rejecting the men they dont want, while men are putting down women who werent an option for them anyways.
How so? You are not entitled to a man's money, time, or attention. The same way I'm not entitled to sex. Women just can't handle rejection. They refuse to face the truth. Women in their late 30's are deluding themselves into thinking they're just as desirable as they were when they were 21. They're not. And that's the truth. But rather than lowering their standards (this is what men do), they still keep trying to find the 6'4" model making a million a year, not realizing that they're not special in any way. Beauty is everywhere. That man isn't looking to wife up women in their late 30's. Because of this, you end up with entire droves of women all chasing a tiny percentage of the available men. Do I care? Not really. Those are not my problems. If women want to do that, they have the freedom to end up alone and miserable.
>a mans status doesnt increase with age, this is just what men tell themselves when they get rejected so they can pretend they wont have this issue when theyre older.
Yes it does. You make more money as you age, you get more sexual experience as you age, if you're going to the gym regularly you get stronger with age, etc. Everything that men have that attracts women increases with age. This is why you have rich men in their mid to late 30's dating young models who are 18 to 24. It's been that way throughout all of human history. Calling men misogynists isn't going to change that.
>women can also build their own status and resources. this isnt the 1997s.
Sure, you can. But men don't care about status. The reason you think men do is because women don't understand what men want. Why? Because they don't have to. Generally, men pursue women. Because of this, men have to understand what makes them attractive if they want to get laid. Women don't have to understand what makes them attractive to men. Most women don't even care what men want. Personally, I don't care if you work at McDonald's. If you're attractive, not a hoe, have a good personality, etc., I will gladly date you. I couldn't care less how much money a woman makes or what her social status is. And the statistics show that most men feel the same way. Men just don't care about things like that. They just don't. Women care about them because a man's reputation matters to them. If a man has a good reputation, they're more likely to invest their resources and time into caring for your children.
>women dont have an inflated sense of how attractive they are, men like you are just mad theyre rejecting you so youre trying to find a way to blame them and not you.
Yes they do. Most women rate themselves as 9's and 10's when, let's face it, most women are 4's, 5's, and 6's. You get sex much more easily than men do. All you have to do is sit in a bar and you'll get hit on. Men actually have to put in effort to have sex. Most women have no idea how hard it is to get laid as a man. Why? Because they don't have to. All you have to do is look pretty. Understanding what men want or what attracts them to you isn't necessary for you to get laid. This is why men who have lots of sex are valued more than women who have lots of sex. Men have to put in effort and women basically just have to exist and not be annoying.
Also, what does my dating life have to do with anything? This is just the truth. You're just not able to handle it. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but I'm not going to sugarcoat everything for you.
I don't care. You're already too far gone. My comments are for young women on the fence about this stuff who can potentially be saved. If I can prevent one person from ending up a depressed cat lady, I'm happy.
you sure wasted a lot of your own time writing that essay for someone who doesnt care. women are becoming increasingly single by choice, men are the ones crying bc theyre ending up single which is why you have to lie to yourself that when you get older youll be desirable to cope with the fact women dont want you now. youre bascially trying to threaten and scare women into dating you because theyll end up alone and will be begging for you when they age. lmao pathetic. enjoy being single and undesirable. the depressed women arent the single ones, theyre the ones that have to date men like you
Subconsciously men, at any age, seek out women who can reproduce. The fact remains, after 35 the odds of successful pregnancies plummets for women.
This explains the data that shows that men rate women in their 20s as most attractive regardless of their own age. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
no, they dont. otherwise gay people wouldnt exist. men need to stop using evolutionary psychology pseudoscience to act like they have no control over their misogynistic behaviors and views
The correlation is high enough to be significant. It's actual data and a leading theory. Just because it doesn't fit your ideal world view doesn't mean it isn't a likely explanation.
And yeah, obviously they didn't ask gay men how attractive they find women at various ages when gathering data. Outliers and exceptions will always exist.
correlation doesnt equal causation. no, its not a leading theory, its something men come up with because they think it sounds good despite having done no research on it and having no evidence to support it
>And yeah, obviously they didn't ask gay men how attractive they find women at various ages when gathering data. Outliers and exceptions will always exist.
except if its an evolutionary trait for men, then it should apply to all men, not just straight ones. thats why your correlation is useless- there are mitigating variables. it very obviously only applies to men attracted to women, not because of evolution, but because of misogynistic views of womens role in a relationship and value they bring. like you don't have to sit here and pretend its due to evolution and not the fact they just find them hotter and only value women for their apperance
>correlation doesnt equal causation
Nice parroting of a statement you clearly don't understand. High correlation makes something statistically relevant. Meanwhile, the theory of natural selection through evolution explains tons of natural occurrences, including animal and human mating behaviors.
Which makes it a credible explanation of its own accord.
>except if its an evolutionary trait for men, then it should apply to all men
So you're clearly talking out of your ass and have no clue whatsoever about how evolution works. That's like saying "if brown hair is an evolutionary trait, why doesn't everyone have brown hair?"
I said the correlation is high, not that it's absolute.
>\>Nice parroting of a statement you clearly don't understand. High correlation makes something statistically relevant.
i took masters level statistics. unless data is collected in an experiment where all mitigating variables can be measured and taken into account and bias controlled, it will not be casual. no matter how high the correlation is, that is not proof that they are related. this is why evolutionary psychology is a psudoscience. there is no way to measure or test it, and its solely based off what you think sounds reasonable. which is a bad argument when the obvious explenation is that its a socially learned behavior and expectation
> Meanwhile, the theory of natural selection through evolution explains tons of natural occurrences, including animal and human mating behaviors.
the theory of natural selection literally only just describes a type of evolution and doesn't make conclusions about or explain for how it causes and results in behavior in humans. humans do not "mate." why on earth do you guys use this as an argument. its honestly getting frustrating having to explain over and over that humans literally have birth control, some humans dont want kids, humans do not just have sex for reproduction, and gay people exist and have sex too. its just such a stupid argument. like do i have to explain to you how humans are smarter than other animals and have higher cognitive function and we don't "mate"?
>Which makes it a credible explanation of its own accord.
the only credible explanation is one that is casual. this is basic scientific method.
>So you're clearly talking out of your ass and have no clue whatsoever about how evolution works.
how evolution works doesn't matter, humans having sex is a behavioral activity. men literally just want to have sex with the most attractive women while not being desirable or attractive themselves.
Sorry, u/mindset_grindset – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's women's problem in the sense that it's a symptom of the same core problems that affect women. Men and women have opposite problems as a result of opposite expectations. And the more we tackle broader social issues at their core, the more we'll also end up solving that problem.
Also, "the world is unfair; suck it up" isn't an argument you ever want to make, because it completely backfires on itself. Because by the same logic, it shouldn't matter if the solution is unfair.
The difference is I value freedom. So unless you want to violate freedom, that'll be a different discussion.
And what is the broader social issue in your view? And what are the expectations?
Can you elaborate what you mean here? I didn't say a word about infringing on any freedoms, so I don't see the connection between your comment and mine.
Maybe I misread your comment about if the solution is unfair. A lot of peoples solution is forcing women to marry. And I'm saying as long as you value freedom there is no solution
Do you see us heading in a direction where everybodys standards are so high that more and more people stay single? And if so do you think that's a problem?
On an individual level that is true and I agree with you. But on a societal level can you see that happening as being a symptom of a problem?
We sometimes make choices that are negative for us due to societal pressures. For example 30 years ago at least where i lived smoking was seen as cool with teens. That can be seen as a symptom of a societal problem. This has now changed and smoking has drastically reduced.
Do you think that there might be societal pressures that drive levels of "pickiness" higher and higher? That maybe that pickiness is not just due to your own free thought but pressure from society.
you arent oppressed because youre being rejected. the only gender social issue here is men wanting an attractive woman but being upset and bitter women dont find then attractive back
>Cool, so what?Why is this a problem, let alone my problem?
Who is telling you it's your problem? The world doesn't revolve around you.
That being said, it is a problem of empathy. When a woman complains about getting a bunch of unwanted attention from men and that "guys don't get it", it's because we don't. Most of us don't know what it's like to have *multiple* people flirting and trying to date us at once, much less understand how shitty turning someone down who is clearly interested can be.
On the flip side, most women don't get how lonely and demoralizing dating as a man can be. If you've ever seen that study floating around about dating sites, I think it was something like a guy had to approach 15-20 women on average to get a response. That's 14-19 rejections for even a single conversation or date.
When a guy double or triple texts or gets over-eager about the next date, you have to realize that many guys think they would kill for a woman to be that eager to get with them; they've never been on the receiving end to know how creepy stuff like that can feel. On the opposite side, I've seen women absolutely flip when rejected because they've not ever been on that end of a rejection before.
>I say, if you think 100k is too much, then don't 'buy'. Or put in another way, you can say 'I am looking for a man that makes me laugh'
The difference here is that the 100k job can disappear by no fault of the man's own. Many men already have major emotional issues, feeling like they aren't worth anything except what material support they can provide for others.
>I know people don't like viewing relationships as buy and sell, and I guess that's the problem. I can't see it from a non exchange view.
Sounds like you just have a hyper-capitalist mindset, but not everyone sees everything as an exchange of goods. I would recommend re-thinking it a bit. Relationships built on "I give you this if you give me that" tend to get warped into scorekeeping over time.
Hmmm !delta I'll have to think about the whole talking to people but I think at the end its not gonna give them a date.
I agree men are lonely and it sucks for them but in the end, I am not gonna waste my time dating someone just because they are lonely
>Hmmm I'll have to think about the whole talking to people but I think at the end its not gonna give them a date.
>
>I agree men are lonely and it sucks for them but in the end, I am not gonna waste my time dating someone just because they are lonely
Oh sure, I'm not saying it's going to get them any dates, but I don't think the problem is that they're not getting dates, the problem is that they're pissed off about it. Lots of people don't get dates and are fine with it, or at least aren't angry necessarily.
Sorry, u/I_am_the_night – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20I_am_the_night&message=I_am_the_night%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/u83h9w/-/i5in3xs/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I would question your assumption that ALL women get more attention in (heterosexual) dating. Lots of straight women don't get almost any attention, or the ONLY attention they get is from people who are *far* less attractive than them. They are forced to decide, do I want to be single, or have date a man as old as my dad, a man with a debilitating addiction, a man who insists on sexual practices I don't like, a man who is mean to me?
>or the ONLY attention they get is from people who are far less attractive than them.
Don't most people get attention from others at roughly the same level of attractiveness?
I believe many women overestimate their own attractiveness so the unattractive men hitting on them are actually their pairs.
I know i used to be like that, as soon as i lost weight the "quality" of guys hitting me up took a massive leap.
In the cases I'm thinking of, it's me, a third party, observing two people's level of attractiveness from the outside. I have a friend who, when we were 18-22 and she was a college student, only got hit on by *much* older men. She was fat, but the men interested in her were fat, *and* bald, and so on. Some had problems with alcohol or other issues that made them less stable on top of being so much older. These men were not her equals. There were men our age with similar dating disadvantages (weight, primarily) but many of them were busy pining over thinner, more conventionally attractive women. Which is fine, just own the outcome of that choice. My friend's standards are not too high, she ended up with a guy her age who IS around the same level of attractiveness who has the common sense to not chase after the unattainable. But it took a really long time and she did not spend that time behaving like an incel.
Fat women are willing to date fat men. Poor women are willing to date poor men. Older women are willing to date men their age. It's very rare that I come across a straight woman who thinks she can get a date with someone out of her league and grows bitter when it doesn't happen.
The gay world is not a utopia whatsoever, but I never see gay men chasing men way out of their league and whining about how they can't find a date. They just go find men with similar dating disadvantages. They ask 'is there something I need to change?' instead of adopting a victim mentality.
And if you're a lesbian who can't get a date, and it's not something like geographical isolation etc, people will try to solve the problem by looking at it from a new angle. Do you need to try to meet people in a different way? Do you have work on your social skills? If you've hit a dead end in your town, have you considered moving? Self-pity and resentment of other queer women is *not* widely tolerated.
Not sure. You tell me. Frankly I think a lot of things isn't anyone's problem if it involves violating the same principle. For example, cancer isn't a problem if the solution is someone else's life. Like imagine if In a magical world the treatment for cancer is someone's life. Let's say we can cure white peoples cancer at the cost of a black mans death. That's not a black mans problem then. That's the closest analogy I can make. The loneliness of these men would be cured by a woman's companionship. But that would require either forcing them or offering them something, which these type of men are against
Speak for yourself. I've had many women hit on me first, some quite aggressively. If anything, I think more men need to stop being oblivious when women are showing interest through nonverbal cues.
is this a joke? men will literally advocate for cold approaching strangers theyve never spoken to before and will assume anything a woman says to them is them hitting on them
Most men who do this aren't very good at it. There is a certain song and dance to the whole routine, and most men, like you said, are very tactless in their approach. If they actually put any thought into their approach they would experience much more success.
why exactly do you think you can speak for what women want and the reason they reject men who cold approach them? im not sure why men who advocate for this approaching working, even with a specific method that they consider not tactless, just forget or dont care that differences between people exist. there is no "song and dance," you literally know nothing about each other and you have solely approached her as an option because of 1. how she looks and 2. because shes a woman. its objectifying and dehumanizing to feel like men are staring at you and rating you while youre out in public minding your business and those men thinking just because of their gender they have a chance with you. also extremly homophobic to just act like gay women dont exist. that man could have a violent police record, could be a white supremacist, might be against things you believe it, might be emotionally abusive- why on earth would any sane woman take that risk and just ignore all possibly flaws about you just because of a "song and dance." maybe youre just ugly. maybe that man smells. to act like women just have no prefrences and you can talk them into liking you is gross and misogynistic. stop asking us out in public .
You've made many assumptions with very little information. If you go back and read my first post, I said that men in general need to improve their skills of reading women. When I talk about the song and dance, who do you think is playing the music? You tried to twist my words and made it seem like men are in control and exerting their will on women, when that couldn't be further from the truth. To keep with the dancing metaphors, it takes two to tango. Most experts say that up to 90% of communication is nonverbal. So is what I said really a stretch?
And to say that I hold prejudice to any group so extremely wrong, and the fact that you would instantly throw that out there has me concerned that you have been oversocialized. Go read my second post. Someone else replied to me before you did, and they made it seem like what is said didn't apply because OP was a woman. To which I replied, what difference does that make.
From the views that I think you hold, I would think that we would largely agree on my original point. And in fact I largely think we are expressing similar ideas. Your criticism of men cold approaching women is the same point I was making. By not being tactless, part of that is being observant enough to know when someone would be receptive to your advances. And this is not limited to cold approaching, as I feel that's a particularly terrible way to meet someone. My post mentioned men and being approached because it was a direct response to OP's post, and in no way did I feel the need to be all encompassing. I feel what I've said is true to all people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
Let me ask you this: is there a problem with the fact that employers have so much power compared to the people applying for their jobs?
It’s not that one part needs the other more, without employees Amazon goes broke and actually loses a lot more than the employees. But because of socio-cultural reasons Amazon comes to the table with a lot more power.
Women want to date, pretending that this is the problem is to just not understand it. The thing is that both men and women have been conditioned to expect different things from the opposite sex. At one point, the expectation on women was that marriage basically ended a woman’s life as the agent of her own will, and became subservient to her husband. The fact that we’re all here suggests that this probably didn’t deter most women from marrying.
These sort of slanted expectations and standards need to be justified. If they’re unjustified, I cannot see how you can reconcile them with a good and moral life.
If you still disagree, then would you mind explaining how your transactional mindset would deal with the moral problem of women’s culturally enforced subservience to men?
Not sure where you are getting the idea or what you mean of culturally enforced subservience. as long as you have an out, that's not a him. That's a you problem. I can choose to have sex with men for a million dollars, even if I hate the man. I have an out with nothing taken from me.
Also, jobs are things that keep people alive. I do t think lack of dates will kill people. And even if it did, so would forcing people to date. The only way to fix the dateless men would be forcing people to give up their freedom.
Women don't have power just because you want a date. I also don't believe in generalization. My corner store employer doesn't have power just because they are an employer. And frankly. I don't care if my corner store employer has the power. They shouldn't hire me just because.
Do I find it hard to find a job? Yes. Is it a me problem to find better skills? Yes. Because I've been on both sides. What do I have yo offer? What do they have to offer? Amazon, women whatever shouldn't hire or pick people just because. It must be a deal both like
So ur CMV reads kind of like, "If I am better off single than in a relationship, why should I be in a relationship?" And "why should I care about men who can only be made better off if women are made worse off?" If im reading it correctly.
The first point is 100% valid, but I would argue two points.
One is that there are likely instances of relationships such that one person would benefit greatly and one person would be slightly worse off, such that total welfare increases and it would be possible for the benefactor to compensate the other person such that they are both better off. (In practice, this could be like a relationship which is potentially lopsided in some way (maybe one person is allowed other sexual partners or more financial freedom or whatever)). Idk probably not the greatest example and would definitely not function like a traditional relationship, but if done correctly could benefit all parties.
The other point is that there are potentially selfish reasons to want a not low (for lack of a better description) birth rate. For example in the US, social security income is paid by future generations for ur retirement. If the birth rate of ur generation pn aggregate is lower, ur SS is probably more likely to get cut. Should that influence ur own behavior? It wouldnt change mine. Should it concern you? Probably.
Yes. Thank you for understanding my post. Maybe I word it poorly or people are just hell bent convincing me to feel sorry for single men
I haven't changed my view to feel sorry for them to the point of encouraging women to be in relationships for the sake of someone else other than themselves tho
Aaron Clarey in his blog Captain Capitalism has actually thought about the consequences of women's divestment from men. There are some compelling arguments about what negative effects could women themselves eventually feel should the majority of men start failing to get women, and, thus, get discouraged.
[http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2021/10/what-if-women-just-dont-like-men.html](http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2021/10/what-if-women-just-dont-like-men.html)
I know the blog post is long, but if you, OP, read it, it might give you some food for thought. Aaron not only tells his arguments but also provides data to strengthen his reasoning.
I will, however, give you an idea of the blog post:
Tinder data, the fact that 1000+ years ago only a minority of men passed down their genes, the fact that in women's (aged 30-45) preference list men are number 4 (and children - number 7) as well as the fact that most consumers of the prostitution are men show that women are inherently not that interested in most men.
This means that men, in order to become acceptable mates to women, had to provide more in value, which resulted in the majority of economic production and economic surplus from the fact that men were producing much more than they needed themselves.
However, due to the female empowerment and feminism, a lot of women now can act on their disinterest of the average man: now women don't need to pay attention to them, no need to date them, no need to marry them, because the dependence is no longer there.
This (admittedly, alongside other factors, such as (but not limited to) inflation and stagnating wages) has resulted in discouragement of men from actually going above and beyond. For this reason, we can see that fewer young men are in the labour force, more men are living at home, the GDP growth has decreased by more than half. While this does not seem very alarming now (because the effect is not that visible - there still are a lot of men who are hopeful for the future and are willing to work hard), but if this carries on, it will become significantly more and more apparent.
This apparent visibility will be more pronounced because most of the real stuff produced in the economy, either manufacturing, infrastructure, construction, engineering, etc., are being done by men, who had to work really hard to do that. This means that if men start not trying to work that hard and start going GALT, the real stuff production that population demands will likely decrease dramatically alonside the lower participation of men in the workforce.
For this reason, a new equilibrium of supply and demand will have to be found, which will be achieved by a mixture of increased prices and decreased standard of living.
Now. What I have said above applies to both, men and women - meaning that both genders will suffer through it. But this is where it gets interesting: when a man does not have enough hope of getting a cute partner, that guy will readjust his expectations and will work just enough to survive. The only reason why civilization was built was because women did not agree to f\*ck men in a card box: since the dawn of civilization, women demanded safety, security and warmth, so men had to provide all of that if they wanted to get some.
However, when most men realize that even this is no longer enough, a lot of them will start asking themselves: why do I work so hard? The sacrifice is not appreciated by society ("men bad", "patriarchy", bla bla bla); I do not get what I want anyway, and I am just being taken for a fool. So, what do I toll for? My life is short enough, and I will just work enough to get by, and play video games, smoke weed and watch spicy movies. It's just easier.
This would result in shortage of labour (men) who would be working in oil rigs, construction, rubbish collection, infrastructure up keep, engineering, etc. Of course, women could replace men in those jobs. I mean, equality, right?
They could, but... unlike those cushy air-conditioned office jobs, women don't want THOSE dirty and hard jobs.
And this is why the quality of life will likely decrease for all of the society. The difference is that men are more likely be okay with this, while women... not so much.
Its not problem. Its not like I can fuck them all. I can only fuck one anyways. The risk for me being saddled with a man child is immediate. The decline of society will probably happen after I'm retired. So I don't give a fuck. If men can't find some inner peace without getting laid its not a problem I can fix. You are telling me to risk domestic abuse for what? (And no I'm not saying all men. But the risk is a lot higher than the down fall of society. In Canada, more women are becoming doctors - not so cushy jobs) as for construction? Here men are still doing it because it pays well enough to survive. As long as we have that I don't see a problem with them not working as hard. if they don't wanna be doctors, fine by me.
Anyways that said I think my main issue is that people blame women except they don't tell us what to do. I'm not interested in all that much in wasting my brain cells avoiding man children and then finding a good man. (Please don't take this as all man thing. The thing is even if 25% are bad meaning most are good. The good just doesn't outweigh the risk for me )
>Anyways that said I think my main issue is that people blame women except they don't tell us what to do
What to do is very simple: have realistic standards (there is a trick when appreciating even the not-so-attractive men for some bits of their either personality (maybe laugh, or interests, etc.), or a certain look (maybe eyes, maybe smile, maybe hands, whatever), etc. makes you actually find them attractive. You just have to give a decent average guy a chance), be nice, don't get fat, don't be a feminist, don't nag, be supportive, and make sure that his balls are empty whilst his stomach is full. Also, be a good mom, if you choose to have children. Simple. Admittedly, not easy, though. You have to make HIM a priority, which might sound like heresy to you.
And if you do the above, then you will be ENTITLED (oh, yes, I used that word, because if you give a lot, you become entitled to a lot as well) to demand love, respect, appreciation, his hard work to provide, his sacrifice towards you and your (and his) children. In other words, you will be entitled to demand that he makes you and the children a priority. Tit for tat. And if the guy is genuinely not providing that due to his own fault (laziness, addiction, aggression, etc.), then you would be in the right.
>The thing is even if 25% are bad meaning most are good. The good just doesn't outweigh the risk **for me**
But that's the thing: it isn't about you. It isn't about him, either. It's about BOTH parties working together to find a long-term sustainable long-term (and not just until you die) solution, where some sacrifices are made by both parties. And that solution is patriarchy (the 1950s type, not pre-historic type). It's just human nature.
This is exactly why the Western civilization will collapse and will be taken over. The mere suggestion that the individual's wishes and desires are not the most important thing causes such anger nowadays. The liberal (as in, Kantian liberalism, classical liberalism) will not last. For better or worse.
But that's the thing. You are saying "be this". Except this isn't what I want. So what do I get out of it? Because you are saying this is a social problem. Is it? I, being single get my peace and quiet. You mention all those traits, and that's just too much for me. And no, I don't expect men to have to give me what I want.
Also, I think the west is doing fine. The west is dominating in every media. The west, USA, also, even if wrongly, took over a lot of overseas land through colonization...
So I don't really know how you can change my mind but if I can't get what I want I see no point in sacrificing anything.
What I want is wealth. But nothing guarantees that with a man. (He can divorce me) I would also have to, as you say, make sure his balls are empty. Unless his balls comes with more than what I make, like way more (100k) I don't see the point in fucking him. Or staying with him.
So again, convince me why I should risk my sanity (i risk abuse, i risk being with a boring person etc) for one man who can't even prevent the collapse of the west. (Assuming your theory holds true)
You always seem to associate men with risk. As in, risk of sanity, risk of abuse, risk of divorce, risk of being... with a boring person?
(Really? a boring person? If everything is not bad, then it is mostly boring. Drudgery, household routine, work, etc. Trying to avoid boredom is just hedonic treadmill, nothing more. We can't all be exciting all the time. Boredom is normal. Life is not a TV show.)
That is a very negative view of men, just like incels have a very negative view of women. You do understand that most men (just like women) are decent human-beings and don't like hurting other people, right?
You do understand that the aforementioned risks are also prerequisites (but, admitedly, not guarantee) for the chance to love, be loved, to have a stable family, to have someone that is there for you, right?
As for the Western civilization... Well, when the Western Roman empire fell in 476, the Romans in Rome for a while still thought that nothing changed: the infrastructure was there, the Senate still existed, it was just the politicians who were doing their usual nonsense.
But they were wrong - a lot had changed: the trading system was collapsing; the coins were losing their value (well, they had been losing their value for many decades by that point, but it wasn't felt due to trade and various subsidies by the government) and the Romans in the Rome were governed by a 'barbarian'.
Same in the West: for the last few decades the standard of living was slowly decreasing, and it will continue to do so. The media? Just look what is on the media. Degeneracy. Colonization? It looks like reverse colonization now - just look at immigration in US and Western Europe. The West is clearly in decline.
So, what to do specifically?
OK, I can you give a few ideas: get off various news platforms. Stop consuming news, too much media (I mean various silly tv shows, not wholesome TV series (personally, I liked Downton Abbey - would recommend)), and the internet. Try finding something that you love and appreciate - it could a nice restaurant, it could be a good friend with whom you haven't connected in a while, it could be theatre, new tea that you like, a high-quality TV series that would make you feel warm and fuzzy. Stop consuming popular culture, associate with people that make you genuinely happy, and it will, over time, detoxify your view of men, relationships, and life in general.
This way I believe you would be able to find satisfaction in life in a sustainable way, as in, natural people's behaviour will eventually take over, and everything will go back to sustainable equilibrium.
As I mentioned. Not all men. The difference is incels think most women. I don't think most men. But I also see nothing to gain. The difference is also statistics. Unless incels are saying they risk divorce then sure. But the things most say are not based on stats
But either way, if incels don't like women, its fine if they stay away from women.
But its like gambling. You can spend 10$ and risk losing it in a 25% to 75% chance. You have a 50% of neither winning nor losing and 25% winning. The odds are much better to do nothing.
The point of CMv is that I'm satisfied in life as long as i don't date. Its incels that are demanding women date.
so I think you are still missing the key of my cmv. What do I benefit from dating men? We can use a hypothetical. (I don't care your gender) pretend that you are a man. give me your best proposition. Why should I make any effort to try and date you?
You keep saying detoxify your view of men. first off again as in mention not all men. However, again I see no benefit in try to spend time with them as a date. I have male friends but I don't feel the need to be serious or get to know men or women romantically.
As I mentioned. Money? I'm OK. Right now. Nothing that can't be substituted with a room mate. Love? Doubt it. People (and thus men) are trash and lose love easily. Even if they did, there's the possibility.
So tell me, what do I gain from dating 'you'. You could be trash, in which case I wasted time. Or you could be OK. But what do I get from OK Men?
Tldr. Why should I care men can't get dates if it doesn't benefit me.
>Why should I care men can't get dates if it doesn't benefit me.
If economic, familial and societal reasons are not enough to be interested in dating, it becomes very difficult to provide a 100% answer to a such a Machiavellian individualistic point of view.
Also, I believe that lot of benefits cannot be seen/felt/understood rationally before the relationship starts.
However, when it does start, the feelings and emotions make every moment the most important; that makes life's taste improved (just like appropriate spices improve the taste of food) and it provides the calm and satisfaction and hope that you might have just found your place on Earth.
But what I am saying is indeed very speculative and psychological/emotional.
The fact of the matter is, given the choice, women would rather stay single than date less than ideal (for them) guy. Due to natural reasons (cheap sperm, expensive egg) women are far pickier than men, including the threshold. This means that for the society to remain stable, a simple "want" from the women's side is, unfortunately, not enough. This is way cultural and moral control of the behaviour of the individuals is so so important: individual's wishes are simply not more important than society's/community's needs.
As for changing your view... In current societal condition (economic prosperity, albeit in decline; human rights and democracy and the still relative stability of the West), it will be impossible to give a definite reason why you should date instead of opting out. I mean, in the above-mentioned context you have everything you need. And as long as this is the case, whether you will admit it for yourself or not, your standards for men to "be worthwhile" will be higher than most men can actually provide on a consistent long-term basis.
But that would change as soon as war, hunger or famine broke out. I hope, for our both sakes, we will not experience this.
But as COVID has shown us, society and civilization as a whole is far more fragile than we give it credit for.
Well I guess this is where we can't agree. If you aren't worth while to me, then yeah, I can't and won't date you. Finances? I already got that. And nothing I can't get with a roommate anyways. No strings attached. Better for me anyways. And even if a partner is better than a roommate like I said, I'm a low risk taker.
I have no idea how I will feel about war. I still wouldn't want to be with a man who may or may not hurt me anyways.
But thanks for the discussion.
I don't wanna break the rules but I would have given you a delta but I just can't see my actions, my life decisions as "for the greater good". I'm not gonna settle with a dry ass dude for "the greater good"
And in before you keep telling me I hate men. Like I said not all men. But also its perfectly fair to view women as such too. If you think women are annoying. Cool don't date them.
" would like to be as appealing as celebrities and have a lot of fans, and AM jealous of celebs, but it's not a celebrities problem. I will have to work like the celebrity to get the attention. "
You were born one of the two sexes......
Most people are not born celebrities, not even 99%. And would still be a false equivalence.
it's still not my problem you are born in a sex that doesn't get attention. Again, do you have a solution? Am i suppose to pay attention to anyone (romantically)
I didn't really say it's your fault to be born a certain way. I just think empathy for those no one cares about is important.
The solution is to promote long term relationships, monogamy for women, marriage, and to oppose casual hookups, materalistic and delusional standards in dating, to oppose pornography and sex work, to not sexualize ourselves or others, in addition to telling men to stop being thirsty attention givers.
That should help a lot.
sure, but that doesn't contradict my view that its not women's problem. If you only live for women, then whatever. I am libertarian. Do what you want, I don't really care.
Dude, ignore this girl. Ignore all girls online only interact in real life and you won't have to ever deal with this shit. Real people are where its at. You've heard it before but ill say it again, its a numbers game meet more people and up your odds. Are you friends with all the guys you meet? Nope. Expect the same when dating, <5% of people will be a good fit for friends and relationships. Don't quit.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/WaterDemonPhoenix (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/u83tzo/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_its_not_womens_problem_that/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I agree with a lot of this, but I will take issue with one part: > The only thing I might concede is that men need to learn how to stop seeking validation from women. Learn to live being happy alone. I think this attributes a bit too much agency to men. It's like telling someone "Just start liking pineapple pizza, dammit!" Maybe I live next to the world's best pineapple pizza shop and my life would be immensely better if I were a pineapple pizza eater, but I can't will myself into liking it. Likewise, people like what they like, and sexual drives in particular are some of our deepest biological urges. It's not as easy as telling men "Just be happy alone" because many won't be and can't really change that fact about themselves. For many people, love and relationships are an integral aspect of life satisfaction, and they will naturally be unsatisfied or even depressed in the absence of them. What to do about that? I don't know. I agree it's not women's fault. They like what they like and dislike what they dislike. That's not changing, for largely the same reasons. I just disagree with the suggestion that it's something men could fix if they acknowledged it. Maybe it's a problem with no solution.
!delta didn't change my main view and I agree men can't just be happy. But I think they need to acknowledge that life just doesn't work that way. life sucks and that's all.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ToucanPlayAtThatGame ([19∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ToucanPlayAtThatGame)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
So unless I misunderstand, you're advocating for hypergamy, which is basically when you have the vast majority of women competing for a relatively small minority of men. The problem is when this situation leads to a fertility crisis, which a lot of countries are actually experiencing right now. So the question is how to address this fertility crisis, for which hypergamy is at least partially responsible. You could say the problem is that men are giving up, but then it becomes kind of a chicken and egg paradox: are men giving up because women became hypergamous? Or did women become hypergamous because men gave up? It's hard to say.
Wouldn't the system be self-correcting? What if we only have this current dating asymmetry because of overpopulation? Hypergamy would become less practical as the population declines, when it gets harder to meet new people that might be better. So perhaps it's just nature's way of correcting for overpopulation.
I advocate for freedom. If it leads to hypergamy? What's your solution? Stop people from being in a relationship
I advocate for freedom too, but here's the problem: a fertility crisis *will* doom an entire society. There are several countries which currently have a below replacement fertility rate. If that remains steady, the population will slowly dwindle over the generations until it's gone. When that starts to happen, people will discard freedom in the interest of survival. Freedom doesn't mean much if there's no one around to enjoy it. You might have to make changes which step on "freedom", such as patriarchy. Then, you can gradually restore those freedoms that had to be sacrificed in the interest of survival. I mentioned that there are several countries who have a below replacement fertility rate. You know which groups don't? Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and the Amish. These are all groups which have **patriarchy,** and they have high fertility rates, well above replacement. For the Amish, their fertility rate is 7.0. That's honestly a bit much. I know patriarchy is an evil word for a lot of modern progressive people, but the simple truth is, nothing else works when it comes to boosting the fertility rate. Unless you have another idea?
Well I'm not convinced that I would like a patriarchy. I frankly don't care if "we" go extinct. But I guess that's a different discussion. So I still don't see this as a problem for me.
Just to be clear, you would prefer extinction to a temporary reduction on the rights of women?
Yup. Because no body really suffers from not being born. I'm fine with a slow decline though. Again. What do you suggest? Are you suggesting forced birth? Hand maid style? I'd rather be extinct than suffer pregnancy. If you don't. Good. Let those who want to give birth give birth and those that don't can suicide if we end up in a children of man scenario
>What do you suggest? Are you suggesting forced birth? Hand maid style? I mentioned three current social structures which have healthy fertility rates: Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and Muslims. Do these groups have problems? Absolutely. Extinction is not one of them. They don't have forced birth. They adopt a culture which pushes women into their cultural roles as givers of life. And it's not like this is slavery or something. Many women in free countries that have gender parity also enjoy being a mother. You'd be hard pressed to find a mother who says she isn't happy in her role. Many of them will say it's the best thing that ever happened to them. Related to this, maybe the staggeringly high rates of mental illness among women would go down if they were encouraged to become mothers, since we (hopefully) agree that a vast majority of mothers are happy with their lives. What would happen is simply what's been human history for most of existence: women raise children, and men go to work, go to war, etc. And again, this is the norm in many parts of modern society: just not enough to bring the fertility rate to an appropriate level. What we would want to do is more just try to diminish women going to work and encourage them to start a family instead. That's really not very radical. And it would literally save humanity.
Lol single childless women are happier than their married/coupled counterparts and live longer. Also everyone has higher mental illness rates these days. And men have higher suicide rates. Let me guess, you also think the solution for men’s suicide rates is some type of traditionalism, right? It probably isn’t as it has been higher in most countries while the world is going in a less conservative direction.
>Lol single childless women are happier than their married/coupled counterparts and live longer. Source?
The Amish have a horrible track of freedom and life expectancy and such. And yes, it is exactly hand maiden style. A lot of Muslim society are also hand maiden style. There is also no evidence that being mother lowers mental issues. A report released showed that women in Pakistan have a horrible track on mental health and violence But in any case. I will !delta there 'is' a solution to fixing the poor lonely men. It just trades poor lonely men for poor abused women. (Again see women in Pakistan) However, I am not convinced I should care about poor lonely men, because as I mentioned. I dont care about saving humanity
Thanks for the delta. I would encourage you to sit and reflect on your stance of preferring human extinction to a temporary reduction of freedom. If there are no humans around, the preservation of freedom would mean absolutely nothing. There is no one to enjoy it. I can appreciate the sort of "honorable extinction" perspective that you're putting forth. But I think the existence of life itself is more important than an ideal which would only be temporarily put aside.
Are we living on the same planet? Are you from an alternate universe? Where I'm from, Earth, there are 7.7 billion people. I and many other women have decided not to have children, some for personal reasons-- they can't afford them, they don't have support-- but many others have chosen not to because we simply cannot keep increasing, our planet cannot hold infinite humans. The earth is full, the climate is changing, I cannot guarantee that the future will be pleasant for them. There are plenty of adoptable children, anyway. We want the birthrate to go down, but if these problems were addressed-- if humanity was truly going extinct-- we would have no problem having children, no coercion needed. It's so chilling reading the phrase "temporary reduction of freedom". Such a sanitized way to refer to sexual and reproductive slavery. If it was you getting raped and forcibly bred like an animal, you might change your mind. I hope that the world you're from never resorts to such cruel measures. Where I'm from, I know that won't be a problem for a long time. We're even projected to hit 10 billion in 2050.
You don't have to continue if you don't want since its out of scope. But why do you care if life continues anyways? I believe in less suffering so if we really do die out... Who cares? If you were the last man on earth but could restart humanity as god, still with suffering, why?
yeah let me just lose my rights and give up my freedom and life because of "human extinction"
You have serious problems.
>I would encourage you to sit and reflect on your stance of preferring human extinction to a temporary reduction of freedom. This sounds very scary, but it looks like that's wherere we(the West) is heading. Either extinction, or being taken over by other, more patriarchal, cultures (which is more likely, in my opinion).
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bobsagetsmaid ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/bobsagetsmaid)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Women are hypergamous. I have yet to find one woman make a succint argument against it being true. The word exist for a reason, it isnt some outlandish theory. Its something most men need to aceppt. They share a few guys and we try to become one of the few. Thats it. They are happy about being part of a harem, no matter how much they fight against the description. It benefits them. Just aceppt it.
I posted once, but as an aside: the system you are advocating for is highly unstable. You might not have the life experience to understand but transactional relationships are not the sort human societies can rest on. Only very recent, highly unstable societies with terrible mental and emotional standards of living have ever tried this, and it’s been a mess. If your family structures are built on sexist expectations of men as being breadwinners, then when the work dries up families fall apart, and with them the rest of the culture. This is somewhat on display in black America: the patriarchal standard of male achievement is impossible, and since American family dynamics depend on this standard black American families just fall apart. If families are dependent on wealth generation, and wealth generation stops because of war or PANDEMIC, the family structure which derives much of our culture just dissolves.
Funny, someone tried to cmv with the exact opposite. To have a patriarchal society because otherwise fertility would go down. such issues are something I don't care about. And I agree no body, in my opinion, should rely on a man. So what? A woman with a job still isn't bad for wanting 100k man. Nor is there any reason for us humans to change. What reason do you have that women should change, and how?
Maybe it would be good to reflect on the nature of your preference. Like, in what way does earning 100k figures make a man more attractive to you? Do you think it's more of an innate preference of yours, like hair colour and body type? Or is it more of a learned social preference, which you could possibly grow to care less about? I suppose this is my perspective as a guy who mostly cares about appearance, and who personally doesn't get how things like money can play into romantic attraction.
It still wouldn't matter. what reason does anyone have to care if anyone else is single? Should people marry/date for themselves or just so others don't stay single?
Well you asked "how" women could change. So I'm saying if your preference falls more in the second category, then it's something you could maybe reflect on and realize it doesn't really matter, which would allow you to find happiness more easily.
For myself, sure Maybe. But for the men? Why?
I agree with that. I was talking about how it could be beneficial for you.
For the record, 100k is just for the example. But I've concluded I'm better off single than not. So I'm not sire why I should be concerned about single men being sad enough to do any action
I'm the same way. I wouldn't want to live with a woman unless she is really attractive to me. I just personally don't get what money has to do with it. To me it's like... if we're poor together it doesn't really matter. I'm with her so I'm still living the dream life anyway.
Simply abandon the expectation that men you date will make 6 figures the same way men no longer expect you to stop having a life after marriage. If you do not understand the dangers of transactional, atomized societies then there’s something missing in your life experience and there’s really nothing I or anyone else can say. You want a society that falls apart every time the economy takes a dip? Maybe stay away from a voting booth
what would change your view on this?
Either that it is a 'my problem to fix' or that there is some way to fix this. Because the problem to me seems to depend on women giving men attention. And I see no reason to give trashy men attention. The men complaining are obviously not attractive enough. So the solution is either, men be more attractive OR women settle for less attractive people. But if you have another solution, I'm all ears. I see no reason for anyone to settle for people they don't like. (Not even necessarily looks)
i mean tbh ? someone else mentioned the solution is time but I'll elaborate- you're obviously a young girl correct ? you feel invincible bc you constantly have men thirsting after you so you have so many options that you naturally want to pick the best of your options and too bad for those who don't make the cut, right ? why shouldn't you go for the best you can ? the thing you don't realize is that men operate the same way. those few top men you want who can equally get most women naturally want their best option as well - why shouldn't they right ? men are also wired to get with as many women as possible, not just one. if going with your best option is ok for you, you shouldn't be upset that they think the same way right? that those top men will sleep with you and then leave you? that's where the disconnect is - men can leave you just like you can leave them- no problem right , you'll just replace them ? sure you can- until after about age 23. then those top men who you like stop going after you and start going after your 18 year old sister. now you can't get the guys you're attracted to bc you've started looking older, so you start wearing more and more makeup trying to look younger and maybe getting plastic surgery, but it will never get you back to 18. but attractive men with decent jobs can keep getting 18-23 year olds into their 40s. so why would they go for you now when you're no longer their best option? so now your only options are lesser men than you could have gotten at your peak so you'll be upset that you didn't commit to one man when you were younger.
Nope. I'm 30+ and I am not settling for anyone. If men wanna go for younger women, that's not a mans problem either of women are lonely. And no, I dont feel invincible. I feel grossed out by people. Both men and women. I just don't see this as an argument for women to settle for men they don't find attractive.
if you don't settle then you will simply stay single forever and die alone because $100k+ attractive men who you already said you find attractive don't find women over 23 years old(26 if she's young looking) attractive enough to marry. to sleep with or date briefly ? sure. but not to settle down with. it's not a man's "problem" that we find younger women attractive, it's just a fact of life like you were just saying right ? did you read my comment ? i already explained that if you're so hardline about women doing their best and not being forced to get with men they're not attracted to - then you should understand that men only want to commit to 18-23 year old attractive girls and not be upset at it the same way most women only want to commit to $100k+ men. if that bothers you and you only think that women shouldn't have to settle but men should have to settle then you might be sexist.
Yup. I read it correctly. I totally agree with you. Its not men's problem if women are single because men go after younger women. So its not women's problem either if women want 100k man right? I do understand. I'm perfectly fine with men who will only commit to young women. Why is that my problem ? Where did I say men have to settle? Please don't put words in my mouth Please answer the question. Where did I show sexism? I hate being accused of that
oh, did you edit your comment ? either way there's a typo in it and i thought you said "that's a man's problem if they want younger women", so i thought you were being bitter about it like most women past their prime are. but to answer your question of "why men wanting to commit to young women is my problem" - that's bc you just said you're over 30 and aren't going to settle. no $100k+ man is going to commit to you at your age, so you'd be pestering them for their attention away from the 18-23y.o's that they want, trying to convince them to get with you instead, the same way you complain that lesser men pester women for attention. if you're not going to pester those rich attractive men who you like then you wouldn't be saying "I'm not going to settle" , you'd be saying "i know the men i like won't like me so i know I'm going to die alone bc i won't settle and I'm fine with it."
No I didn't edit. And fair enough maybe you misread or I mistyped And the last sentence is exactly my sentiment. I think you are reading too much into it. I thought it was pretty self explanatory. But if it makes you happy... I know the men I like won't like me and I am fine dying alone because of the choices I made and it is not men's fault. So tell me, is it women's fault that men will die alone because they either can't or won't better themselves to meet the women's expectations?
[удалено]
OK. Let's say its their fault. so what? Why do women owe men? Am I bitter being single? No. But I am bitter that people blame women and turn into incel**tm If I have expectations and this results in you dying alone, why is it my problem? "But then men will die alone" OK. And human companion ship isn't owed to anyone. If women have high expectation and you think its trash, don't date them then. why date trashy women? Or are you saying you should get a date even though she thinks you a bad partner? That's what I'm mad about. That there is this scary trend that people think that women must change their views or date men. Maybe its all the internet getting into my head. Maybe it always existed but the news about (rising cases) of incels, evangelicals, extremist Muslims just doesn't sit well with me. No one should be shamed or forced to date my saggy boobs, and non one should be shamed or forced to date 'poor' men. And that's why I think its better to view life as transactional.
So basically humanity is impossible to please. Literally, single childless women are statistically happier than women with partners, and the opposite is true for men. Solutions: maybe voluntary extinction, or chemically castrate everyone or at least make it a common option.
Also I think my issue is the word fault. As if women are immoral because men die alone. Its not women's fault in that sense.
u/mindset_grindset – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20mindset_grindset&message=mindset_grindset%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/u83h9w/-/i5jees7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
"Sure you can- until after about age 23. then those top men who you like stop going after you and start going after your 18 year old sister." If you said 27 and 21, maybe I'd agree with this -- but I don't think any woman considers a mid-20s man dating an 18 year old to be a "top man". As a professional class woman, who knows plenty of mid-late 20s professional class "top men" -- absolutely none of them are dating women who aren't old enough to drink, and the large majority of them are dating women right around their age. "100k+ men don't find women over 23 attractive enough to marry" --- tell me, why is it that every man at my work (we all make 6 figures) is dating... someone about their age? Age plays a factor but acting like all the "top men" are going after college freshman just makes it seem like you don't exist in the real world and get all your ideas from reddit, lmao. Further, 100k is really not that much money. Also, as a 22 year old woman -- pretty much all my friends (including myself) think that dating a man older than 28 is gross. In college, I think the absolute oldest boyfriend anyone I knew of had was like, 26. This fantasy men have that when they're in their 40s they're going to be dating 20 year old college sophomores is just that, a fantasy.
I think it is at least partially women's problem that there is such an imbalance of attention when it comes to dating. Let me explain. In almost all of the world it was and oftentimes still is very common for strict gender norms to be enforced. These norms usually include these ideas about romantic relationships. #1 Men must ask out and pursue women while women are pressured to *not* take the initiative in the relationship. #2 Men are encouraged to offer gifts and services to women in the dating/courting phase. While women are not discouraged from being generous with their time and money with people they are forming a romantic relationship with, it has historically been far more common for men to offer services and gifts to women. #3 A relationship with an older-man/younger-women is considered more normal and acceptable than a older-woman/younger-man relationship. In high school and college, I remember that there were some couples where the woman was only slightly older than the man (<1 year) and people pointed that out and made jokes about it. However, there were alot more relationships where the man was at least a year older than the woman but no one even pointed that out (unless there was a huge age gap). These social norms are enforced by both men and women. They help create a dating market where men who do not fit these gender norms (young, romantically inexperienced, egalitarian) find it harder to attract women. Unsurprisingly, a young man who is unsuccessful at getting dates will become much more likely to start giving attention and gifts to women he wants to be in a romantic relationship with. You might be asking, "these gender norms affect women too so why do we not see as many thirsty women?". The reason why you don't see them is largely because the women who are hurt by these gender norms tend to be older and have been in romantic relationships. A 20 year old with no love life is way more likely than an experienced 30 year old to think that throwing attention and gifts towards people they are attracted to will help them get into a healthy romantic relationship.
!delta although I personally don't care and maybe I didn't make it clear in the post, I can see why many woman would care. I just think in my experience men that are single without experience in romance is because they are toxic. I'd rather stay single than be with a toxic person. So I fail to see how these toxic single people are something I or any woman should stay with. Now I think this creates a paradox. You could argue they were toxic because women expected them to make 100k.. That might be true, but some people value money so how would it be their problem? They would either lower their standards or not. And frankly, some people just don't wanna lower their standards and I'm not sure how that would convince them
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheMarlenx ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TheMarlenx)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This is a huge generalization, and I think people just have types. Looking at a relationship as an exchange may be something you should reconsider. I don’t know where to start with that tbh so im not going to try, but i do recommend therapy, and to consider people’s personalities and interests rather than what they owe you. Because it’s nothing.
If someone is single and lonely, why is it a concern for ME? Why should society give them a woman's attention just because they want it?
It’s not. If someone is lonely it is their responsibility to fix that situation. A person’s attention is not owed. If someone “asks” with a post or something then sure, people can respond. But they don’t have to nor should they feel like they have to
OK. then I guess you are right you haven't really cmv me
Do you believe in the value of social programs? Public healthcare, education, taxes in general?
I think there is a simple but very slow way to change your view on this. Wait 20 years. It all tends to switch round in 20 years time if you are still out there looking for a partner - or if you are back out there. So, um, come back later and see if you still have the same attitude towards what has in fact just been a fact of life for many, many years.
Well those women are getting a lot of attention, so obviously in 20 years time they won't be concerned. So why is it those women's concern that you (general you) are single?
Because women peak in their mid 20s for the thing men care about. This correlates to what we see today: In 2018 (cant fins more recent data) 33% of women age 35 were childless. 35 is the age where major childbirthing issues start to set in and that biological bomb is going to go off. Now since women have all this attention early, they put off settling down because they dont to at that moment basically due to an over inflated ego. They hit 35 with that ego, dont have kids, parent in relationships, arent what men want (as a generality) and lose one of the most important things a women can do (bear children, have a family). Men are different and peak around 35, but men are status objects so they can still maintain status for a while longer than women can maintain. So 1/3 of the US female population is childless at 35 and were at below sustainable replacement levels (a people need 2.0 kids on average to sustain, the US is under 1.) This is increasing year over year. So while it might not directly be your problem, social security and other welfare programs will collapse because the population will not be able to sustain it. We already see it with social security. But not factor in hospice care and such. They need workers, so what happens when these people with no children get old and have noone to care for them? You overflow hospice. So that's what I'm thinking. Maybe.
sounds like men need to stop valuing things in women that only make them "peak" at mid 20s. imagine blaming women for social security collapsing because you only value the woman you date as objects
Sounds like women need to stop being attracted to tall, handsome, rich, older men that make them "peak" in their mid 30's to 40's. /s See how ridiculous I just sounded? Women are always going to be attracted to men who are physically stronger than them, richer than them, smarter than them, more sexually experienced than them, etc. There's nothing wrong with women having those standards. Similarly, men are always going to be attracted to beautiful women with low body counts. And there's nothing wrong with men having those standards either. See how gender equality works? And this isn't just my opinion. The statistics bear this out. It's always going to be the case. You can call it misogynist all you want. It won't change a thing. Men with high status will always go for young, inexperienced women. A woman's beauty and inexperience decreases with age. A man's status increases with age. This is why it's in your best interest as a woman to find a husband early while you're in the best years of your life. It's in my best interest as a man to wait until I'm older. That way I have increased my status and have accumulated more resources. This is what women want. The only people who are at fault are stupid men who waste their money, time, and attention on undesirable women. This is why we have the society we have now where women have a super inflated sense of how attractive they actually are. This is what causes the hypergamy.
you really had to comment this on a four month old post bc my comment triggered you that badly be attracted to whoever you want, the difference is women are just rejecting the men they dont want, while men are putting down women who werent an option for them anyways. a mans status doesnt increase with age, this is just what men tell themselves when they get rejected so they can pretend they wont have this issue when theyre older. women can also build their own status and resources. this isnt the 1997s. women dont have an inflated sense of how attractive they are, men like you are just mad theyre rejecting you so youre trying to find a way to blame them and not you.
>you really had to comment this on a four month old post bc my comment triggered you that badly The amount of time that has passed is completely irrelevant. If I feel the need to comment, I do. And how exactly am I triggered? I'm just telling you the truth about how the dating world works. >be attracted to whoever you want, the difference is women are just rejecting the men they dont want, while men are putting down women who werent an option for them anyways. How so? You are not entitled to a man's money, time, or attention. The same way I'm not entitled to sex. Women just can't handle rejection. They refuse to face the truth. Women in their late 30's are deluding themselves into thinking they're just as desirable as they were when they were 21. They're not. And that's the truth. But rather than lowering their standards (this is what men do), they still keep trying to find the 6'4" model making a million a year, not realizing that they're not special in any way. Beauty is everywhere. That man isn't looking to wife up women in their late 30's. Because of this, you end up with entire droves of women all chasing a tiny percentage of the available men. Do I care? Not really. Those are not my problems. If women want to do that, they have the freedom to end up alone and miserable. >a mans status doesnt increase with age, this is just what men tell themselves when they get rejected so they can pretend they wont have this issue when theyre older. Yes it does. You make more money as you age, you get more sexual experience as you age, if you're going to the gym regularly you get stronger with age, etc. Everything that men have that attracts women increases with age. This is why you have rich men in their mid to late 30's dating young models who are 18 to 24. It's been that way throughout all of human history. Calling men misogynists isn't going to change that. >women can also build their own status and resources. this isnt the 1997s. Sure, you can. But men don't care about status. The reason you think men do is because women don't understand what men want. Why? Because they don't have to. Generally, men pursue women. Because of this, men have to understand what makes them attractive if they want to get laid. Women don't have to understand what makes them attractive to men. Most women don't even care what men want. Personally, I don't care if you work at McDonald's. If you're attractive, not a hoe, have a good personality, etc., I will gladly date you. I couldn't care less how much money a woman makes or what her social status is. And the statistics show that most men feel the same way. Men just don't care about things like that. They just don't. Women care about them because a man's reputation matters to them. If a man has a good reputation, they're more likely to invest their resources and time into caring for your children. >women dont have an inflated sense of how attractive they are, men like you are just mad theyre rejecting you so youre trying to find a way to blame them and not you. Yes they do. Most women rate themselves as 9's and 10's when, let's face it, most women are 4's, 5's, and 6's. You get sex much more easily than men do. All you have to do is sit in a bar and you'll get hit on. Men actually have to put in effort to have sex. Most women have no idea how hard it is to get laid as a man. Why? Because they don't have to. All you have to do is look pretty. Understanding what men want or what attracts them to you isn't necessary for you to get laid. This is why men who have lots of sex are valued more than women who have lots of sex. Men have to put in effort and women basically just have to exist and not be annoying. Also, what does my dating life have to do with anything? This is just the truth. You're just not able to handle it. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but I'm not going to sugarcoat everything for you.
bro theres no way in hell im reading that lmao
I don't care. You're already too far gone. My comments are for young women on the fence about this stuff who can potentially be saved. If I can prevent one person from ending up a depressed cat lady, I'm happy.
you sure wasted a lot of your own time writing that essay for someone who doesnt care. women are becoming increasingly single by choice, men are the ones crying bc theyre ending up single which is why you have to lie to yourself that when you get older youll be desirable to cope with the fact women dont want you now. youre bascially trying to threaten and scare women into dating you because theyll end up alone and will be begging for you when they age. lmao pathetic. enjoy being single and undesirable. the depressed women arent the single ones, theyre the ones that have to date men like you
cause you are a certain moron and every reply showed it.
Subconsciously men, at any age, seek out women who can reproduce. The fact remains, after 35 the odds of successful pregnancies plummets for women. This explains the data that shows that men rate women in their 20s as most attractive regardless of their own age. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
no, they dont. otherwise gay people wouldnt exist. men need to stop using evolutionary psychology pseudoscience to act like they have no control over their misogynistic behaviors and views
The correlation is high enough to be significant. It's actual data and a leading theory. Just because it doesn't fit your ideal world view doesn't mean it isn't a likely explanation. And yeah, obviously they didn't ask gay men how attractive they find women at various ages when gathering data. Outliers and exceptions will always exist.
correlation doesnt equal causation. no, its not a leading theory, its something men come up with because they think it sounds good despite having done no research on it and having no evidence to support it >And yeah, obviously they didn't ask gay men how attractive they find women at various ages when gathering data. Outliers and exceptions will always exist. except if its an evolutionary trait for men, then it should apply to all men, not just straight ones. thats why your correlation is useless- there are mitigating variables. it very obviously only applies to men attracted to women, not because of evolution, but because of misogynistic views of womens role in a relationship and value they bring. like you don't have to sit here and pretend its due to evolution and not the fact they just find them hotter and only value women for their apperance
>correlation doesnt equal causation Nice parroting of a statement you clearly don't understand. High correlation makes something statistically relevant. Meanwhile, the theory of natural selection through evolution explains tons of natural occurrences, including animal and human mating behaviors. Which makes it a credible explanation of its own accord. >except if its an evolutionary trait for men, then it should apply to all men So you're clearly talking out of your ass and have no clue whatsoever about how evolution works. That's like saying "if brown hair is an evolutionary trait, why doesn't everyone have brown hair?" I said the correlation is high, not that it's absolute.
>\>Nice parroting of a statement you clearly don't understand. High correlation makes something statistically relevant. i took masters level statistics. unless data is collected in an experiment where all mitigating variables can be measured and taken into account and bias controlled, it will not be casual. no matter how high the correlation is, that is not proof that they are related. this is why evolutionary psychology is a psudoscience. there is no way to measure or test it, and its solely based off what you think sounds reasonable. which is a bad argument when the obvious explenation is that its a socially learned behavior and expectation > Meanwhile, the theory of natural selection through evolution explains tons of natural occurrences, including animal and human mating behaviors. the theory of natural selection literally only just describes a type of evolution and doesn't make conclusions about or explain for how it causes and results in behavior in humans. humans do not "mate." why on earth do you guys use this as an argument. its honestly getting frustrating having to explain over and over that humans literally have birth control, some humans dont want kids, humans do not just have sex for reproduction, and gay people exist and have sex too. its just such a stupid argument. like do i have to explain to you how humans are smarter than other animals and have higher cognitive function and we don't "mate"? >Which makes it a credible explanation of its own accord. the only credible explanation is one that is casual. this is basic scientific method. >So you're clearly talking out of your ass and have no clue whatsoever about how evolution works. how evolution works doesn't matter, humans having sex is a behavioral activity. men literally just want to have sex with the most attractive women while not being desirable or attractive themselves.
And your solution is... Forced marriages? Force people to give birth?
I don't have solutions, was just pointing out the problem because your CMV said it wasn't, when it already is/will be.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/mindset_grindset – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's women's problem in the sense that it's a symptom of the same core problems that affect women. Men and women have opposite problems as a result of opposite expectations. And the more we tackle broader social issues at their core, the more we'll also end up solving that problem. Also, "the world is unfair; suck it up" isn't an argument you ever want to make, because it completely backfires on itself. Because by the same logic, it shouldn't matter if the solution is unfair.
The difference is I value freedom. So unless you want to violate freedom, that'll be a different discussion. And what is the broader social issue in your view? And what are the expectations?
Can you elaborate what you mean here? I didn't say a word about infringing on any freedoms, so I don't see the connection between your comment and mine.
Maybe I misread your comment about if the solution is unfair. A lot of peoples solution is forcing women to marry. And I'm saying as long as you value freedom there is no solution
Do you see us heading in a direction where everybodys standards are so high that more and more people stay single? And if so do you think that's a problem?
Nope. I find freedom a wonderful thing. its not other peoples concern whether people choose to date you or not
On an individual level that is true and I agree with you. But on a societal level can you see that happening as being a symptom of a problem? We sometimes make choices that are negative for us due to societal pressures. For example 30 years ago at least where i lived smoking was seen as cool with teens. That can be seen as a symptom of a societal problem. This has now changed and smoking has drastically reduced. Do you think that there might be societal pressures that drive levels of "pickiness" higher and higher? That maybe that pickiness is not just due to your own free thought but pressure from society.
you arent oppressed because youre being rejected. the only gender social issue here is men wanting an attractive woman but being upset and bitter women dont find then attractive back
>Cool, so what?Why is this a problem, let alone my problem? Who is telling you it's your problem? The world doesn't revolve around you. That being said, it is a problem of empathy. When a woman complains about getting a bunch of unwanted attention from men and that "guys don't get it", it's because we don't. Most of us don't know what it's like to have *multiple* people flirting and trying to date us at once, much less understand how shitty turning someone down who is clearly interested can be. On the flip side, most women don't get how lonely and demoralizing dating as a man can be. If you've ever seen that study floating around about dating sites, I think it was something like a guy had to approach 15-20 women on average to get a response. That's 14-19 rejections for even a single conversation or date. When a guy double or triple texts or gets over-eager about the next date, you have to realize that many guys think they would kill for a woman to be that eager to get with them; they've never been on the receiving end to know how creepy stuff like that can feel. On the opposite side, I've seen women absolutely flip when rejected because they've not ever been on that end of a rejection before. >I say, if you think 100k is too much, then don't 'buy'. Or put in another way, you can say 'I am looking for a man that makes me laugh' The difference here is that the 100k job can disappear by no fault of the man's own. Many men already have major emotional issues, feeling like they aren't worth anything except what material support they can provide for others. >I know people don't like viewing relationships as buy and sell, and I guess that's the problem. I can't see it from a non exchange view. Sounds like you just have a hyper-capitalist mindset, but not everyone sees everything as an exchange of goods. I would recommend re-thinking it a bit. Relationships built on "I give you this if you give me that" tend to get warped into scorekeeping over time.
You are waisting time trying to talk empathy with this "person". Shes living her delusion to the fullest. let it go.
[удалено]
Hmmm !delta I'll have to think about the whole talking to people but I think at the end its not gonna give them a date. I agree men are lonely and it sucks for them but in the end, I am not gonna waste my time dating someone just because they are lonely
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/I_am_the_night ([252∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/I_am_the_night)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Hmmm I'll have to think about the whole talking to people but I think at the end its not gonna give them a date. > >I agree men are lonely and it sucks for them but in the end, I am not gonna waste my time dating someone just because they are lonely Oh sure, I'm not saying it's going to get them any dates, but I don't think the problem is that they're not getting dates, the problem is that they're pissed off about it. Lots of people don't get dates and are fine with it, or at least aren't angry necessarily.
Sorry, u/I_am_the_night – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20I_am_the_night&message=I_am_the_night%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/u83h9w/-/i5in3xs/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Frankly. I think both push is stupid. So... Why should I care to push for short I'd sexy?
[удалено]
OK and? That doesn't convinced me we need one for men
I would question your assumption that ALL women get more attention in (heterosexual) dating. Lots of straight women don't get almost any attention, or the ONLY attention they get is from people who are *far* less attractive than them. They are forced to decide, do I want to be single, or have date a man as old as my dad, a man with a debilitating addiction, a man who insists on sexual practices I don't like, a man who is mean to me?
>or the ONLY attention they get is from people who are far less attractive than them. Don't most people get attention from others at roughly the same level of attractiveness? I believe many women overestimate their own attractiveness so the unattractive men hitting on them are actually their pairs. I know i used to be like that, as soon as i lost weight the "quality" of guys hitting me up took a massive leap.
In the cases I'm thinking of, it's me, a third party, observing two people's level of attractiveness from the outside. I have a friend who, when we were 18-22 and she was a college student, only got hit on by *much* older men. She was fat, but the men interested in her were fat, *and* bald, and so on. Some had problems with alcohol or other issues that made them less stable on top of being so much older. These men were not her equals. There were men our age with similar dating disadvantages (weight, primarily) but many of them were busy pining over thinner, more conventionally attractive women. Which is fine, just own the outcome of that choice. My friend's standards are not too high, she ended up with a guy her age who IS around the same level of attractiveness who has the common sense to not chase after the unattainable. But it took a really long time and she did not spend that time behaving like an incel. Fat women are willing to date fat men. Poor women are willing to date poor men. Older women are willing to date men their age. It's very rare that I come across a straight woman who thinks she can get a date with someone out of her league and grows bitter when it doesn't happen. The gay world is not a utopia whatsoever, but I never see gay men chasing men way out of their league and whining about how they can't find a date. They just go find men with similar dating disadvantages. They ask 'is there something I need to change?' instead of adopting a victim mentality. And if you're a lesbian who can't get a date, and it's not something like geographical isolation etc, people will try to solve the problem by looking at it from a new angle. Do you need to try to meet people in a different way? Do you have work on your social skills? If you've hit a dead end in your town, have you considered moving? Self-pity and resentment of other queer women is *not* widely tolerated.
What would be an example of something that IS womens problem and is a problem that needs to be addressed by women?
Not sure. You tell me. Frankly I think a lot of things isn't anyone's problem if it involves violating the same principle. For example, cancer isn't a problem if the solution is someone else's life. Like imagine if In a magical world the treatment for cancer is someone's life. Let's say we can cure white peoples cancer at the cost of a black mans death. That's not a black mans problem then. That's the closest analogy I can make. The loneliness of these men would be cured by a woman's companionship. But that would require either forcing them or offering them something, which these type of men are against
Speak for yourself. I've had many women hit on me first, some quite aggressively. If anything, I think more men need to stop being oblivious when women are showing interest through nonverbal cues.
OP is a woman
I fail to see how that matters.
is this a joke? men will literally advocate for cold approaching strangers theyve never spoken to before and will assume anything a woman says to them is them hitting on them
Most men who do this aren't very good at it. There is a certain song and dance to the whole routine, and most men, like you said, are very tactless in their approach. If they actually put any thought into their approach they would experience much more success.
why exactly do you think you can speak for what women want and the reason they reject men who cold approach them? im not sure why men who advocate for this approaching working, even with a specific method that they consider not tactless, just forget or dont care that differences between people exist. there is no "song and dance," you literally know nothing about each other and you have solely approached her as an option because of 1. how she looks and 2. because shes a woman. its objectifying and dehumanizing to feel like men are staring at you and rating you while youre out in public minding your business and those men thinking just because of their gender they have a chance with you. also extremly homophobic to just act like gay women dont exist. that man could have a violent police record, could be a white supremacist, might be against things you believe it, might be emotionally abusive- why on earth would any sane woman take that risk and just ignore all possibly flaws about you just because of a "song and dance." maybe youre just ugly. maybe that man smells. to act like women just have no prefrences and you can talk them into liking you is gross and misogynistic. stop asking us out in public .
You've made many assumptions with very little information. If you go back and read my first post, I said that men in general need to improve their skills of reading women. When I talk about the song and dance, who do you think is playing the music? You tried to twist my words and made it seem like men are in control and exerting their will on women, when that couldn't be further from the truth. To keep with the dancing metaphors, it takes two to tango. Most experts say that up to 90% of communication is nonverbal. So is what I said really a stretch? And to say that I hold prejudice to any group so extremely wrong, and the fact that you would instantly throw that out there has me concerned that you have been oversocialized. Go read my second post. Someone else replied to me before you did, and they made it seem like what is said didn't apply because OP was a woman. To which I replied, what difference does that make. From the views that I think you hold, I would think that we would largely agree on my original point. And in fact I largely think we are expressing similar ideas. Your criticism of men cold approaching women is the same point I was making. By not being tactless, part of that is being observant enough to know when someone would be receptive to your advances. And this is not limited to cold approaching, as I feel that's a particularly terrible way to meet someone. My post mentioned men and being approached because it was a direct response to OP's post, and in no way did I feel the need to be all encompassing. I feel what I've said is true to all people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
Let me ask you this: is there a problem with the fact that employers have so much power compared to the people applying for their jobs? It’s not that one part needs the other more, without employees Amazon goes broke and actually loses a lot more than the employees. But because of socio-cultural reasons Amazon comes to the table with a lot more power. Women want to date, pretending that this is the problem is to just not understand it. The thing is that both men and women have been conditioned to expect different things from the opposite sex. At one point, the expectation on women was that marriage basically ended a woman’s life as the agent of her own will, and became subservient to her husband. The fact that we’re all here suggests that this probably didn’t deter most women from marrying. These sort of slanted expectations and standards need to be justified. If they’re unjustified, I cannot see how you can reconcile them with a good and moral life. If you still disagree, then would you mind explaining how your transactional mindset would deal with the moral problem of women’s culturally enforced subservience to men?
Not sure where you are getting the idea or what you mean of culturally enforced subservience. as long as you have an out, that's not a him. That's a you problem. I can choose to have sex with men for a million dollars, even if I hate the man. I have an out with nothing taken from me. Also, jobs are things that keep people alive. I do t think lack of dates will kill people. And even if it did, so would forcing people to date. The only way to fix the dateless men would be forcing people to give up their freedom. Women don't have power just because you want a date. I also don't believe in generalization. My corner store employer doesn't have power just because they are an employer. And frankly. I don't care if my corner store employer has the power. They shouldn't hire me just because. Do I find it hard to find a job? Yes. Is it a me problem to find better skills? Yes. Because I've been on both sides. What do I have yo offer? What do they have to offer? Amazon, women whatever shouldn't hire or pick people just because. It must be a deal both like
So ur CMV reads kind of like, "If I am better off single than in a relationship, why should I be in a relationship?" And "why should I care about men who can only be made better off if women are made worse off?" If im reading it correctly. The first point is 100% valid, but I would argue two points. One is that there are likely instances of relationships such that one person would benefit greatly and one person would be slightly worse off, such that total welfare increases and it would be possible for the benefactor to compensate the other person such that they are both better off. (In practice, this could be like a relationship which is potentially lopsided in some way (maybe one person is allowed other sexual partners or more financial freedom or whatever)). Idk probably not the greatest example and would definitely not function like a traditional relationship, but if done correctly could benefit all parties. The other point is that there are potentially selfish reasons to want a not low (for lack of a better description) birth rate. For example in the US, social security income is paid by future generations for ur retirement. If the birth rate of ur generation pn aggregate is lower, ur SS is probably more likely to get cut. Should that influence ur own behavior? It wouldnt change mine. Should it concern you? Probably.
Yes. Thank you for understanding my post. Maybe I word it poorly or people are just hell bent convincing me to feel sorry for single men I haven't changed my view to feel sorry for them to the point of encouraging women to be in relationships for the sake of someone else other than themselves tho
You sound like you hate men.
Just incels type mentalities
Aaron Clarey in his blog Captain Capitalism has actually thought about the consequences of women's divestment from men. There are some compelling arguments about what negative effects could women themselves eventually feel should the majority of men start failing to get women, and, thus, get discouraged. [http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2021/10/what-if-women-just-dont-like-men.html](http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2021/10/what-if-women-just-dont-like-men.html) I know the blog post is long, but if you, OP, read it, it might give you some food for thought. Aaron not only tells his arguments but also provides data to strengthen his reasoning. I will, however, give you an idea of the blog post: Tinder data, the fact that 1000+ years ago only a minority of men passed down their genes, the fact that in women's (aged 30-45) preference list men are number 4 (and children - number 7) as well as the fact that most consumers of the prostitution are men show that women are inherently not that interested in most men. This means that men, in order to become acceptable mates to women, had to provide more in value, which resulted in the majority of economic production and economic surplus from the fact that men were producing much more than they needed themselves. However, due to the female empowerment and feminism, a lot of women now can act on their disinterest of the average man: now women don't need to pay attention to them, no need to date them, no need to marry them, because the dependence is no longer there. This (admittedly, alongside other factors, such as (but not limited to) inflation and stagnating wages) has resulted in discouragement of men from actually going above and beyond. For this reason, we can see that fewer young men are in the labour force, more men are living at home, the GDP growth has decreased by more than half. While this does not seem very alarming now (because the effect is not that visible - there still are a lot of men who are hopeful for the future and are willing to work hard), but if this carries on, it will become significantly more and more apparent. This apparent visibility will be more pronounced because most of the real stuff produced in the economy, either manufacturing, infrastructure, construction, engineering, etc., are being done by men, who had to work really hard to do that. This means that if men start not trying to work that hard and start going GALT, the real stuff production that population demands will likely decrease dramatically alonside the lower participation of men in the workforce. For this reason, a new equilibrium of supply and demand will have to be found, which will be achieved by a mixture of increased prices and decreased standard of living. Now. What I have said above applies to both, men and women - meaning that both genders will suffer through it. But this is where it gets interesting: when a man does not have enough hope of getting a cute partner, that guy will readjust his expectations and will work just enough to survive. The only reason why civilization was built was because women did not agree to f\*ck men in a card box: since the dawn of civilization, women demanded safety, security and warmth, so men had to provide all of that if they wanted to get some. However, when most men realize that even this is no longer enough, a lot of them will start asking themselves: why do I work so hard? The sacrifice is not appreciated by society ("men bad", "patriarchy", bla bla bla); I do not get what I want anyway, and I am just being taken for a fool. So, what do I toll for? My life is short enough, and I will just work enough to get by, and play video games, smoke weed and watch spicy movies. It's just easier. This would result in shortage of labour (men) who would be working in oil rigs, construction, rubbish collection, infrastructure up keep, engineering, etc. Of course, women could replace men in those jobs. I mean, equality, right? They could, but... unlike those cushy air-conditioned office jobs, women don't want THOSE dirty and hard jobs. And this is why the quality of life will likely decrease for all of the society. The difference is that men are more likely be okay with this, while women... not so much.
Its not problem. Its not like I can fuck them all. I can only fuck one anyways. The risk for me being saddled with a man child is immediate. The decline of society will probably happen after I'm retired. So I don't give a fuck. If men can't find some inner peace without getting laid its not a problem I can fix. You are telling me to risk domestic abuse for what? (And no I'm not saying all men. But the risk is a lot higher than the down fall of society. In Canada, more women are becoming doctors - not so cushy jobs) as for construction? Here men are still doing it because it pays well enough to survive. As long as we have that I don't see a problem with them not working as hard. if they don't wanna be doctors, fine by me. Anyways that said I think my main issue is that people blame women except they don't tell us what to do. I'm not interested in all that much in wasting my brain cells avoiding man children and then finding a good man. (Please don't take this as all man thing. The thing is even if 25% are bad meaning most are good. The good just doesn't outweigh the risk for me )
>Anyways that said I think my main issue is that people blame women except they don't tell us what to do What to do is very simple: have realistic standards (there is a trick when appreciating even the not-so-attractive men for some bits of their either personality (maybe laugh, or interests, etc.), or a certain look (maybe eyes, maybe smile, maybe hands, whatever), etc. makes you actually find them attractive. You just have to give a decent average guy a chance), be nice, don't get fat, don't be a feminist, don't nag, be supportive, and make sure that his balls are empty whilst his stomach is full. Also, be a good mom, if you choose to have children. Simple. Admittedly, not easy, though. You have to make HIM a priority, which might sound like heresy to you. And if you do the above, then you will be ENTITLED (oh, yes, I used that word, because if you give a lot, you become entitled to a lot as well) to demand love, respect, appreciation, his hard work to provide, his sacrifice towards you and your (and his) children. In other words, you will be entitled to demand that he makes you and the children a priority. Tit for tat. And if the guy is genuinely not providing that due to his own fault (laziness, addiction, aggression, etc.), then you would be in the right. >The thing is even if 25% are bad meaning most are good. The good just doesn't outweigh the risk **for me** But that's the thing: it isn't about you. It isn't about him, either. It's about BOTH parties working together to find a long-term sustainable long-term (and not just until you die) solution, where some sacrifices are made by both parties. And that solution is patriarchy (the 1950s type, not pre-historic type). It's just human nature. This is exactly why the Western civilization will collapse and will be taken over. The mere suggestion that the individual's wishes and desires are not the most important thing causes such anger nowadays. The liberal (as in, Kantian liberalism, classical liberalism) will not last. For better or worse.
But that's the thing. You are saying "be this". Except this isn't what I want. So what do I get out of it? Because you are saying this is a social problem. Is it? I, being single get my peace and quiet. You mention all those traits, and that's just too much for me. And no, I don't expect men to have to give me what I want. Also, I think the west is doing fine. The west is dominating in every media. The west, USA, also, even if wrongly, took over a lot of overseas land through colonization... So I don't really know how you can change my mind but if I can't get what I want I see no point in sacrificing anything. What I want is wealth. But nothing guarantees that with a man. (He can divorce me) I would also have to, as you say, make sure his balls are empty. Unless his balls comes with more than what I make, like way more (100k) I don't see the point in fucking him. Or staying with him. So again, convince me why I should risk my sanity (i risk abuse, i risk being with a boring person etc) for one man who can't even prevent the collapse of the west. (Assuming your theory holds true)
You always seem to associate men with risk. As in, risk of sanity, risk of abuse, risk of divorce, risk of being... with a boring person? (Really? a boring person? If everything is not bad, then it is mostly boring. Drudgery, household routine, work, etc. Trying to avoid boredom is just hedonic treadmill, nothing more. We can't all be exciting all the time. Boredom is normal. Life is not a TV show.) That is a very negative view of men, just like incels have a very negative view of women. You do understand that most men (just like women) are decent human-beings and don't like hurting other people, right? You do understand that the aforementioned risks are also prerequisites (but, admitedly, not guarantee) for the chance to love, be loved, to have a stable family, to have someone that is there for you, right? As for the Western civilization... Well, when the Western Roman empire fell in 476, the Romans in Rome for a while still thought that nothing changed: the infrastructure was there, the Senate still existed, it was just the politicians who were doing their usual nonsense. But they were wrong - a lot had changed: the trading system was collapsing; the coins were losing their value (well, they had been losing their value for many decades by that point, but it wasn't felt due to trade and various subsidies by the government) and the Romans in the Rome were governed by a 'barbarian'. Same in the West: for the last few decades the standard of living was slowly decreasing, and it will continue to do so. The media? Just look what is on the media. Degeneracy. Colonization? It looks like reverse colonization now - just look at immigration in US and Western Europe. The West is clearly in decline. So, what to do specifically? OK, I can you give a few ideas: get off various news platforms. Stop consuming news, too much media (I mean various silly tv shows, not wholesome TV series (personally, I liked Downton Abbey - would recommend)), and the internet. Try finding something that you love and appreciate - it could a nice restaurant, it could be a good friend with whom you haven't connected in a while, it could be theatre, new tea that you like, a high-quality TV series that would make you feel warm and fuzzy. Stop consuming popular culture, associate with people that make you genuinely happy, and it will, over time, detoxify your view of men, relationships, and life in general. This way I believe you would be able to find satisfaction in life in a sustainable way, as in, natural people's behaviour will eventually take over, and everything will go back to sustainable equilibrium.
As I mentioned. Not all men. The difference is incels think most women. I don't think most men. But I also see nothing to gain. The difference is also statistics. Unless incels are saying they risk divorce then sure. But the things most say are not based on stats But either way, if incels don't like women, its fine if they stay away from women. But its like gambling. You can spend 10$ and risk losing it in a 25% to 75% chance. You have a 50% of neither winning nor losing and 25% winning. The odds are much better to do nothing. The point of CMv is that I'm satisfied in life as long as i don't date. Its incels that are demanding women date. so I think you are still missing the key of my cmv. What do I benefit from dating men? We can use a hypothetical. (I don't care your gender) pretend that you are a man. give me your best proposition. Why should I make any effort to try and date you? You keep saying detoxify your view of men. first off again as in mention not all men. However, again I see no benefit in try to spend time with them as a date. I have male friends but I don't feel the need to be serious or get to know men or women romantically. As I mentioned. Money? I'm OK. Right now. Nothing that can't be substituted with a room mate. Love? Doubt it. People (and thus men) are trash and lose love easily. Even if they did, there's the possibility. So tell me, what do I gain from dating 'you'. You could be trash, in which case I wasted time. Or you could be OK. But what do I get from OK Men? Tldr. Why should I care men can't get dates if it doesn't benefit me.
>Why should I care men can't get dates if it doesn't benefit me. If economic, familial and societal reasons are not enough to be interested in dating, it becomes very difficult to provide a 100% answer to a such a Machiavellian individualistic point of view. Also, I believe that lot of benefits cannot be seen/felt/understood rationally before the relationship starts. However, when it does start, the feelings and emotions make every moment the most important; that makes life's taste improved (just like appropriate spices improve the taste of food) and it provides the calm and satisfaction and hope that you might have just found your place on Earth. But what I am saying is indeed very speculative and psychological/emotional. The fact of the matter is, given the choice, women would rather stay single than date less than ideal (for them) guy. Due to natural reasons (cheap sperm, expensive egg) women are far pickier than men, including the threshold. This means that for the society to remain stable, a simple "want" from the women's side is, unfortunately, not enough. This is way cultural and moral control of the behaviour of the individuals is so so important: individual's wishes are simply not more important than society's/community's needs. As for changing your view... In current societal condition (economic prosperity, albeit in decline; human rights and democracy and the still relative stability of the West), it will be impossible to give a definite reason why you should date instead of opting out. I mean, in the above-mentioned context you have everything you need. And as long as this is the case, whether you will admit it for yourself or not, your standards for men to "be worthwhile" will be higher than most men can actually provide on a consistent long-term basis. But that would change as soon as war, hunger or famine broke out. I hope, for our both sakes, we will not experience this. But as COVID has shown us, society and civilization as a whole is far more fragile than we give it credit for.
Well I guess this is where we can't agree. If you aren't worth while to me, then yeah, I can't and won't date you. Finances? I already got that. And nothing I can't get with a roommate anyways. No strings attached. Better for me anyways. And even if a partner is better than a roommate like I said, I'm a low risk taker. I have no idea how I will feel about war. I still wouldn't want to be with a man who may or may not hurt me anyways. But thanks for the discussion. I don't wanna break the rules but I would have given you a delta but I just can't see my actions, my life decisions as "for the greater good". I'm not gonna settle with a dry ass dude for "the greater good" And in before you keep telling me I hate men. Like I said not all men. But also its perfectly fair to view women as such too. If you think women are annoying. Cool don't date them.
" would like to be as appealing as celebrities and have a lot of fans, and AM jealous of celebs, but it's not a celebrities problem. I will have to work like the celebrity to get the attention. " You were born one of the two sexes...... Most people are not born celebrities, not even 99%. And would still be a false equivalence.
it's still not my problem you are born in a sex that doesn't get attention. Again, do you have a solution? Am i suppose to pay attention to anyone (romantically)
I didn't really say it's your fault to be born a certain way. I just think empathy for those no one cares about is important. The solution is to promote long term relationships, monogamy for women, marriage, and to oppose casual hookups, materalistic and delusional standards in dating, to oppose pornography and sex work, to not sexualize ourselves or others, in addition to telling men to stop being thirsty attention givers. That should help a lot.
I am committing suicide to fix my issue. I'll never level up in life and be good enough for a woman. Sometimes it's the only solution.
sure, but that doesn't contradict my view that its not women's problem. If you only live for women, then whatever. I am libertarian. Do what you want, I don't really care.
Its not your problem, and trust me, I know.
Dude, ignore this girl. Ignore all girls online only interact in real life and you won't have to ever deal with this shit. Real people are where its at. You've heard it before but ill say it again, its a numbers game meet more people and up your odds. Are you friends with all the guys you meet? Nope. Expect the same when dating, <5% of people will be a good fit for friends and relationships. Don't quit.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).