faceh
1hr ago
This is perhaps my biggest concern.
If there is no controlled unwinding, the upcoming generation might be particularly amenable to a drastic policy shift.
Whatever happens when a young man is raised to internalize the opposite of the women-are-wonderful effect...
I think you are being slightly unfair to the authors of the paper.
I did mention explicitly that I am not attacking the authors... and that I'm lamenting the larger cultural trend where the only solutions allowed to be discussed are those that aim at male behavior.
Hence my suspicion:
and this implied solution just appears to be the sort of blunt facial honesty that Norwegians are known for. I'm not attacking this paper.
But its all part of this larger trend. The Manosphere documentary is aimed at deflating male influencers, but offers no good solutions to men write large. The only people apparently allowed to publish their perspectives on gender issues are women. The disaffected male point of view gets no play at all.
The fact that nobody with any perceived authority can just say "men have valid grievances, and some solutions may inconvenience women" is symbolic of the issue. We can't make good progress without getting over that hump.
faceh
2hr ago
Its hard to tell these days.
I also have to suspect they added the female author on there to pre-emptively deflect certain types of critiques that would arise when people see what their data says.
Its why I suspect that we'll eventually, finally see a politician try to place male's concerns front and center.
faceh
2hr ago
If there's any reasonable explanation for why it would be relegated entirely amongst young males, I'd be interested to hear it.
faceh
2hr ago
If there is some pristine piece of data out there that doesn't rely on self-reports and somehow peers into people's sex lives directly to make conclusions about the rates of pairings I'd love to see it.
I've sure looked.
But when all the extant stats point approximately in the same direction, I feel pretty confident drawing the most obvious conclusion.
Especially when you account for dating app disparities too.
Do you think there's any downstream effect of some small % of men getting the highest % of matches on such apps? Would that increase or decrease the amount of sex partners they'd have?
faceh
2hr ago
and the young men and women who don't leave their rooms aren't hooking up.
Quick question. If these young men and women were to leave their room, which would have an easier time getting laid?
Also dating apps means you can locate a hookup without leaving your room, funny enough.
Guess what dating app dynamics look like. What % of men would you guess are getting the most matches?
Even if your point about kids not leaving their room is correct, it doesn't actually refute the core issue.
faceh
2hr ago
"a few guys RIGHT NOW are banging all the women"
Well, the data is in the actual study.
And the data they are using is drawn from the last 10 years (as I emphasized).
And I think the last 10 years is when the gender war trends became most pronounced.
The similar trend is that More young men are reporting having less sex. Young women are having about the same amount, although there is decline.
Women also report more sex partners prior to marriage then in decades past.
Who are the young women having sex with.
I don't think you can finagle out of this one.
Women having more sex partners.
More men reporting less sex on average.
Women's self-reported standards for partners being raised.
Solve for X.
Perhaps there is an increasing number of celibate women... but this doesn't help with the actual problem in the slightest.
Yes, and you've got an actual piece of research saying that 10% of the promiscuous men are accounting for 60% of the sexual encounters women have.
You've also got the data that shows fewer young men are having, young women are reporting about the same amount.
And the additional factor of women having more sex partners on average than years past.
So whomst are the young women having sex with.
Then of course you can watch a Clavicular stream and see that exact dynamic play out in real time.
I dunno what type of evidence you would find convincing, but it is likely available.
faceh
3hr ago
Or, continued mass migration from the wellsprings of fertility
Bad news there, even Africa is on the decline
This is why I consider the problem too important to ignore. The "organic" solutions are not solving.
faceh
3hr ago
I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Me too.
Descriptively, women are, on average, miserable (especially millenials and Gen Z). What good is all that extra leverage doing them?
As for your points, I think you are overestimating how disenfrinched the average male is.
If you limit it to men under 30, They sure feel that way.
South Korea still lives on.
Objectively, they will not be a functional society in <60 years without something historically unprecedented occurring.
I also don't think much can be done about this.
Well better hope the AI thing works out then.
Oh so we'd expect most surveys on the topic to be an over-report on the men's side.
Okay.
Interesting that young men are claiming fewer sex partners and less sex, recently.
What changed? Why'd they suddenly stop overreporting?
By your logic, the sex recession among men is EVEN WORSE THAN IT SEEMS from this data.
(women remain more steady on this, btw)
I have yet to see a SINGLE data point that goes against the "lots of women are actually hooking up with relatively small portion of men" talking point. And the dating apps seem to have exacerbated it.
China saw it as such a huge problem so they've taken drastic action.
All that extra freedom and they're less satisfied than ever.
Its almost like the female gender is an inverse utility monster. Almost.
faceh
4hr ago
Women have more negotiating power and they are using it.
Which makes it odd that they're
Less satisfied with their status in society
Are more likely to be single and childless
And are overall less happy than they were 50 years ago
(married women are happier, BTW.)
Oh, and a huge portion of them claim to hate men even though the reverse isn't true.
Does that seem fine to you?
All that negotiating power and they claim they're worse off than before. Odd.
Hell it may even improve women genetically because only the hottest women would get laid with hottest men.
That would require them to have actual children. As it turn out, if women control more wealth, they have fewer kids.
I think the opposite of what you're expecting is happening... since as stated in my original post, more educated women have fewer kids. So the most genetically fit women are the ones burning the most time on education and careers.
Whoops.
Anyhow, What do you think happens if 50+% of the males in a society are no longer bought in to its success because they have no stake it future generations?
Who fights your wars, builds your machines and buildings, maintains your power plants and roads.
I beg you, I PLEAD with you, consider second and third order effects. We have built the most functional and successful society the planet has ever seen on the norms you're asking us to discard.
Best justify it.
Yes, I've had every single iteration of this discussion a dozen times by now, I think I can address any argument by simply pointing to data I've already cited and comments I've made in the past.
I keep engaging with the gender wars/fertility crisis topic even though its slowly driving me mad. But its too important to ignore.
Actual title of a paper published today in the Cambridge Press, by a Norwegian research team:
Not paraphrased or exaggerated. Apparently published by a team of two males and a female. I don't even mean to attack the authors, the paper doesn't seem to be 'slanted' in its presentation... and this implied solution just appears to be the sort of blunt facial honesty that Norwegians are known for. I'm not attacking this paper.
We had the discussion just yesterday where a German Police Chief (himself male) says women should avoid relationships with men for their safety. My commentary is on the larger cultural trend.
Now, the paper itself draws some specific conclusions using data from the last ten years. (i.e. when the gender wars really accelerated) From a twitter thread:
Women's freedom is strongly correlated with declining fertility.
About 60% of female sexual partnerships are with the 10% most promiscuous men. I have to interpret "most promiscuous" as "most attractive," because very, very few men are able to be promiscuous without being hot. Likewise, this looks VERY suggestive of a broader 80/20 rule in place.
Ultimately they suggest that solving the TFR crisis means getting single women to have more kids. Hence the 'marginalization' of men.
This paper so readily confirms almost everything I've talked about in here I'm worried its designed precisely to trigger confirmation bias in me, specifically. Read it and decide for yourself, I guess.
As I've said, going off of the last 10-20 years of data:
Women probably only view about 20% of men as 'people' worthy of attention.
Women who got to college and enter careers tend to have the highest standards... regardless of their own suitability as a mate.
Lotharios exploiting the current gender dynamics for low-commitment sex are a problem.
Of course I note that every single bit of this is explained by shifts in female behavior, which is to say there's not much shift in men's behavior, so the overt focus on men's alleged failures seems... odd.
I do not find it pleasant to believe all these statistics and their implied conclusions, but no matter how much I ask for challenges, every bit of data just adds on to the pile of confirmation.
I'll throw out hope spot because there is a small bit of data that contradicts the overall narrative... South Korea is actually seeing a bump towards increased fertility!. I am watching this very keenly to determine if there is much hope of pulling out of the spiral.
I've genuinely got very little new to say on this topic. Its beaten to death. Its a bloody pulp, we're standing ankle-deep in the putrid mix of entrails of this topic as the waterline slowly rises every day. I've very interested in workable solutions, though.
I am a very reasonable person. I do not get angry at mere insults easily. Call me whatever you want to my face, your words have no power. But what sets me off is when someone pisses on my leg and tells me its raining, when I can look up and see there's not a cloud in the sky. "Men are horrible, and it is socially good and necessary to marginalize them." The insinuation against my person doesn't bug me. Its the blatant lie contradicted by all available information. It is simply false (especially in the West). It is epistemic malpractice. And it seems intentional and malicious, on some level.
Every. single. day. I am faced with a loud cultural message that (unattractive) men are expendable, mostly unwanted, dangerous, useless, and generally deserve to be lonely, poor, and depressed. And, as a kicker, that 80% or so of men are unattractive to women, so its the majority of them who are marked for evolutionary failure.
Today its this paper.
Yesterday its Mr. German Policeman.
The week before it was that Manosphere documentary.
Last year it was that British Miniseries.
It is a neverending cascade. And of course there's zilch, zero, nada content produced in the mainstream that examines if female behavior is becoming more toxic and suggesting intervention.
Me, I have the mental fortitude to put all this in context and ignore it as an influence on my individual behavior. I have my internal locus of control and the self-confidence to believe I will succeed anyway.
Yet there's millions of young males who are vulnerable to this message, and it is killing them, metaphorically and often literally, and nobody with any authority is doing anything about it or even talking about it without also piling on with the exact same rhetoric.
I simply don't see how one can claim that there's any true 'Patriarchy' in the Western World when government officials, scientific papers, nationally broadcast documentaries, and general everyday people can happily proclaim that men ought to be marginalized for everyone's good if they can't accept a lot in life that amounts to being a second class citizen in their own country... while women are elevated to the level of landed aristocracy on their backs.
Meanwhile the main voices speaking on the other side are inherently outsiders like Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes.
I don't even think we have a matriarchy to be clear, it really does just seem like society is organized around the "women are wonderful effect" and the average person is psychologically incapable of deviating from this programming.
Where does this end?
faceh
7hr ago
And, likewise, dad needs to be in the picture in some substantial way.
I'd bet, and it is just my hypothesis, that the epidemic of single moms raising kids means many girls making atrocious choices in boyfriends and this causes their downstream hysteria around men in general.
And of course, dad has to have some semblance of authority, ideally with legal backing, to act to remove bad suitors from the picture.
faceh
20hr ago
Which, given historic DV rates, they're not actually better (especially husbands).
Nah, the issue here is that its not a random selection.
Its like the stat that more people are killed by cows than sharks every year.
There's a lot more cows, and humans interact with cows far more often. A shark is, all else equal, much more dangerous to the human.
So a stranger can in fact be more individually dangerous, even if the perpetrator of an incident of abuse is more likely to be someone they know.
If a woman interacts with her husband daily then of course the husband is the most likely person to commit any abuse. Doesn't mean he's the most dangerous male she actually encounters.
faceh
1d ago
The main point that I absolutely give the feminists is that physical abuse by males is far more dangerous for women, in terms of the actual harm that can be inflicted, casually.
Likewise, a male is much more capable of raping (in the most basic sense, literal forced penetration) the average female than the reverse.
Now this is based on the differential in physical strength between the genders, so acknowledging this issues dismantles almost all of the rest of the feminist perspective, but I accept it as truth.
So we are faced with a situation where male abusers are a far greater risk factor than female ones, all else equal. And they're absolutely able to deceive and manipulate their way into a position to be abusive, they don't wear a giant tattoo on their face saying "I <3 punching females" so its not trivial to pick them out of the crowd.
Okay, some of them DO wear the equivalent of such a tattoo.
I'm fully on board with the need to heavily police male behavior... but that has to be done by males. Such males ALSO have to be selected to not be abusive, so you want them to be males that also have some skin in the game, some investment in the safety of the females in question.
Sooooo: Fathers. Brothers. Husbands.
Sigh.
faceh
1d ago
Something something society-wide "Women are Wonderful" effect.
faceh
4d ago
From the purely pragmatic/actuarial standpoint, if the gap is 10 years or larger, you as the male had better make some kind of preparations that will ensure financial security for the family if you die, and definitely to cover those last few years of care.
I mean you should in any case, but doubly so if you're asking them to sign up for a very high chance of spending their twilight years alone and unable to earn much.
faceh
4d ago
It gives me no happiness to report it, but my generalized experience with women is that by age 26, their personalities aren't ever improving from what they've displayed up until then.
This is not to say a single woman automatically becomes unmarriageable after that point! If their personality is good, its probably going to stay that way too.
But that age appears to be when the traumas and bad decisions will pile high enough that they can't be suppressed so long.
The Hail Mary of having her pop out a kid and see if that unlocks the nurturing part of her brain has many risks.
Its such a cruel/weird trick of nature that the age of 18-25 is when men should be doing their best to gain life experience and toughen themselves up... whereas women should be doing their best to avoid getting debauched and should be protecting their general positive life outlook as long as possible.
And under current social paradigms, we basically encourage the opposite arrangement.
faceh
4d ago
If they're considered mature enough to sign contracts, they should be considered mature to have to follow through on them.
And therein lies the problem. If they're not mature enough to follow through on them (as the facts in evidence show), why are we assuming they were mature enough to understand them at the time they signed them?
Females in particular might have a hard time grasping compound interest.
And yes, bankruptcy is an answer in many cases... but the practical point there is that banks won't lend to people who are likely to declare bankruptcy.
So that becomes the de-facto maturity test, whether a bank considers you credit-worthy.
faceh
4d ago
So who should be held liable when an emotionally immature 18-19 year old signs a contract and then has a breakdown when they're unable to complete their end of it.
Not quite.
There's some subset of women who aren't having sexual encounters at all.
Of the women having sexual encounters, this implies that about 60% of those encounters are with a particular subset of men.
And then we ALSO have data that women are on average having more sexual encounters than ever.
So contingent on the amount of women actually having sex (somewhere around 80% of young women, based on self reports) the vast majority of their sex is with a small cohort of men.
And the contingent of men having sex is decreasing fairly quickly. Suggesting that the % of men on the receiving end of these sexual encounters is getting even more exclusive.
The only sane interpretation is that women are having more sex, on average, with a smaller pool of guys.
Which is, ONCE AGAIN, backed up by data from Dating apps.
A small % of guys are even matching with women, let alone having sex with them.
Am I the only one that uses google anymore?
Half of Young men just aren't dating.
Around 45% have never asked a woman out at all.
That's 50% out of the pool already. Do you think a guy who turns 25 with minimal/zero dating experience is likely to turn that around and have success with women by age 30?
As of 2023, 60% of young men reported they were single. That number. 34% of young women reported being single. WHO ARE THE WOMEN DATING if not those young men?
As of 2026, around 34% of young men report being in a 'serious' relationship.. Situation is not really improving.
So we're hovering somewhere around 70% of young dudes who are not currently on trajectory to get married.
You tell me why that would be, if men actually want to get married. What's the holdup, why can't they attract a partner?
There's little reason to think that'll improve.
And you can hear women tell you the exact same thing straight from their mouth.
"If your standards don't eliminate most, they're not high enough."
"I'd rather die alone... ...than know that I didn't get it all."
This is being openly stated, in publicly viewable forums, young women TELLING YOU DIRECTLY that most men aren't sufficient for them. THEY'RE NOT HIDING IT.
Why would that be? What possible explanation is there other than... some large % of men (60%? 70%? 80%?) don't rise to their notice.
I've discussed each of these individual points before, of course. Its getting very rote to have this discussion when the data still says the same thing, and all the new data just reinforces the existing point.
My precise position is that about 50% of men are invisible to women, with an additional 30% that only become visible on occasion once acknowledged.
More options
Context Copy link