I mean, we could probably take a look at the economic productivity of given nations who lost some significant portion of their male population in a short period of time.
Like, say, after a war.
We usually do indeed see the female population shift in to cover some of the shortfall.
Somehow I doubt that shift actually covered all the missing labor, and more likely certain less critical services were left to languish in the meantime.
More likely, I'd expect the aforementioned wage premium for strong laborers to encourage men to do more work so as to make up some of the difference.
As I said, I suspect there's a baseline hard laborer requirement needed to maintain the workings of civilizations, and as long as a society is barely above that line it can keep advancing.
I do not know where that baseline would be. I honestly do not want to find out.
faceh
19hr ago
So we're taking an efficiency/productivity hit since now entire industries has to be designed around standards based on what slightly above-average women/teams of women can do.
And we can expect a much higher injury rate which means more downtime, and higher medical costs to boot.
Women are just not outfitted for heavy, repetitive labor.
Although this also means exceptionally strong laborers will command quite a premium.
faceh
19hr ago
I appreciate that you're bringing some actual data and nuance.
But its still slamming headfirst into the reports that half of young men just... aren't dating.
And that the average # of sexual partners reported by females (prior to marriage) has climbed over decades... even as marriage rates fall. Women are clearly having more sex with a variety of men.
This can still all track if the average man is having more sex than they used to. But that doesn't appear in any data, although we can see signs that some small subset of men are getting laid a ton. Women are not having sex with a random selection of the male population. There's a lot of overlap in who they're having sex with.
Whether this rises to an 80/20 ratio is debatable, but I don't think you can look at one of those guys in the 50% of non-daters and say with a straight face "statistically, you're having sex somewhat regularly."
faceh
19hr ago
Scroll to the actual list of occupations under that category.
It includes, non-exhaustively:
- Automotive service technicians and mechanics
- Construction laborers
- Water and wastewater treatment plant and system operators
- Landscaping and groundskeeping workers
- Refuse and recyclable material collectors
- Industrial machinery mechanics
The categorization is due to the fact that those jobs would "occasionally" require lifting of "26–50 pounds".
Whereas in order to classify as 'light' work, it never requires lifting that much.
I don't think I'd want to implement this sort of move unless we had our robot factories up and running.
Maintenance of advanced civilization requires a lot of back-breaking work, constantly, day in and day out.
Fixing roads, disposing of waste, farming, butchering, building construction, fixing cars and heavy machinery, fighting fires, and running and maintaining electrical wires (lowkey, the most important one is that last one).
These needs spike in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster. Natural disasters are not a solved problem.
There's going to be some baseline need for physically strong laborers just to maintain what we have, let alone push us forward.
Here's interesting stats I didn't know existed before:
"Physical strength required for jobs in different occupations."
It looks like "Medium Strength" occupations and above are the ones that really need male capabilities. So we're sitting at around 40% of jobs that will need males to fill them, on the physical side. Then some overage of that for the mentally demanding stuff too.
Not a lot of headroom to start reducing the male ratio below 50%.
"Oh but we can outsource a lot of our industry/labor intensive work."
That just shifts the problems elsewhere, not eliminates them. We already do that in the U.S., and there's still 35+% of jobs that need upper body strength to perform effectively. China did its one child policy and now has an excessive number of males... which we get a benefit from by buying their labor at a discount.
That can't last.
Historically, I think the actual solution was always to create 'tiers' of males. In short, expendables and non-expendables.
So you have one class that is basically or literally enslaved, and was expected to die early after a hard, miserable life. That would reproduce only at the will of their betters to ensure a consistent supply of such labor to maintain the lifestyles of the rest.
Then the upper class, where the male-female ratio WAS much more favorable to those males.
That 'solves' your problem of needing males to do the work that upholds society, whilst also keeping the 'problem' males on a short leash, and giving the upper-class males a favorable gender ratio.
simultaneously believing that Donald Trump needs to be assassinated and that it's a shame all these courageous shooters keep missing, and also that they are all hoaxes and staged by the evil Orange Man to raise his political capital and make them look bad.
Its even a bit worse than that, the logic they're apparently using.
23k upvotes on the suggestion that it is highly suspicious that a shooter showed up to the one Correspondent's dinner Trump has attended in years. Of course the original twitter post has 250k likes so its even worse there.
Which, you know, Occam's razor would say that a shooter who wanted Trump dead would NOT show up to a Correspondent's dinner where he wasn't attending, but surely might show up if Trump was there and this was the best opening. It is not odd that these two things were correlated.
Disclaimer: Reddit it is astroturfed to all hell, so I can't even be sure this is an organic depiction of Redditors' views, but the fact that the echo chamber will defend both the need to kill him AND write off failed attempts as false flags shows serious epistemic collapse.
faceh
2d ago
Its mildly amusing how the reddit left doesn't want to claim this particular guy, but they do want to praise the idea of killing Trump, so they can't reject him either.
So they keep getting incompetent, uncharismatic assassins making poorly-timed (politically speaking) doomed attempts and getting embarrassingly thwarted.
Which ends up running against their interests, since we see the various MAGA factions set aside their differences and gift Trump substantial political capital that he didn't even have to work for.
And I'm not making a galaxy-brained argument that its good for Trump that people keep trying to kill him. I am saying that he is pretty good at spinning such failed attempts into favorable results. Its pretty freakin' fair to say the Butler attempt, and his immediate reaction, contributed to his later win.
But they can't bring themselves to say "STOP trying to kill the guy, you're not going to succeed, its bad optics, and he'll use it to advance his own goals." Because they presumably do wish one of them gets lucky.
And yeah, imagine they 'get lucky' and take out Trump at the perfect time to ensure the GOP sweeps 2028 and Vance has a mandate to root out the domestic terrorists who offed the beloved orange man.
Dear lord.
I just really don't want to share a country with these people.
Like, he's getting the barest of points for intentionally targeting the officials he actually has a beef with, and not people tangentially connected with their policies.
But as the central justification for the action:
I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.
Really. Gonna go with the most spurious of the allegations rather than something particularly concrete about his policies or the negative impact you think they've had on actual individuals. Didn't even tack "Nazi" on the end there.
I genuinely consider armed rebellion a feature of our political system, so hey, a guy wants to grab a gun and make a run at a politician, its not my preference and I'd advise against it, but I won't say its morally wrong. But I can't support it when someone goes off on such an adventure with such a limited casus belli and even more limited idea of how offing his target(s) would improve the situation as stated.
I dunno man. I can imagine a list of specific grievances you could attach to Trump and this administration that would create a tangible justification for offing them. I would probably disagree with most of them, but I could get why someone whose family got deported or who thought they were protecting trans people's lives or claimed we were days away from a fascist takeover might feel compelled to act.
But "he's a pedophile rapist traitor" is a bit thin on the face of it. "He raped my sister" or "he's about to sell nukes to Russia" would have more oomph.
According to your interpretation of the research, 10 of those men are fucking 60 of the women.
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.
80% of men are unacceptable to women" does not fit real-world observations. Are 80% of adult men today incels? Really? Are 80% of young men not dating or having sex at all?
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.
faceh
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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.
That's closer to how I'd model it.
A hot, high status guy looking to get his rocks off can find a naive but physically attractive woman with self-esteem issues, and use his talents honed on much more selective girls to gas her up enough to bang him with relative ease. But the sheer truth of it is that being seen with her would detract from his status (and hurt his odds with the more selective girls) so its a bare, unvarnished fact of the universe that he will absolutely NEVER advance a relationship with her.
In a world where physical altercation isn't allowed, the girl's male family, and her other potential suitors, cannot actually slap the shit out of an interloper to discourage this. So males that can flex pure status and high verbal IQ have no real risk here, they don't have to fight their competition like deers locking antlers.
So I'd say the male-male competition aspect is narrowed by the fact that the only two factors you're allowed to compete on are pure attractiveness + status. The real challenge for getting laid is overcome the lady's defenses.
More options
Context Copy link