I dont see how a goverment-run dating service would solve the issue that social-media had made hypergamy run on steroids and that people today have much higher demands on their partner than ever before.
In sweden we have one semi popular dating site with minimal amount of matching algoritms and swiping and such and its no easier there to find a partner than on tinder.
Hypergamy is real. "I need to have a baby, but eew this guy is a dork, I'm not giving him my womb, and look at all these cool guys on insta" is a real conversation I've had.
Had one drop me for a professional DJ.
A friend of mine was convinced she was going to marry a famous basketball player.
You can guess how these "relationships" went.
Super average women with one or two OUTSTANDING characteristics (get it.)
It's a real problem.
Fortunately, I already had kids when we were both younger and dumber which might ultimately be the solution: keep humans off social media until they're grandparents.
Haha, this made me laugh and made me think of an absurd analogy.
Women are buying call options (hedge against rising prices) on men and the premium is the emotional damage that occurs when the market price on the guy falls below the strike price (turns out the man is a dud) and the woman refrains from pursuing the guy (no marriage).
It's poor in taste but I just can't unsee the similarity...
> people today have much higher demands on their partner than ever before.
"People"? For heteros, it is mostly women who have raised their demands. Seriously, are men raising their standards? For men under 30, they are probably lowering their standards!
The best summary I have seen: Average women are no longer interested in average men. More details: Since women became economic equals to men, they are no longer interested in their economic equals. They want men who earn (much) more money than them, and that makes those men very rare.
Specific to Sweden, is it really true that women now approach men? I heard about this trend in Denmark and Netherlands, but I am a bit suspicous because it is mostly anecdotal.
Obviously you're wading into hot water by even outlining this analysis. Personally I'm tempted to buy it (if it's true, it's true!) but recently I saw an interesting argument that softened me up a bit to the feminist line. It's that the traditional deal between the sexes has been broken. Before, women would suffer the hardship and danger of childbirth, and in return men would take on the physical perils of war. In modern society, of course, conflict mostly means playing video games in an armchair. And yet bearing children remains a stubbornly physical chore. Hence a latent feeling of injustice that may balance out the real one you describe.
> and in return men would take on the physical perils of war.
Oh common. Those wars were not for the benefit of women. They were for the benefit of decision making men, the men who ruled. Which were not women. And the men in power sometimes used women as argument for why you should go invade this or that country, but then again appeal to patriotism was even stronger. There are limited situations, like Ukraine today which is defending where the "for other women and children" claim can kinda be made. And even there, fighers are motivated by more then just that.
Traditionally, you was fighting for your male ruler.
The war thing is not deal between sexes. Even today, men are more likely to support invasions, to support parties that lead country to wars.
Countries ruled by woman also go to war, and have done going back for millennia: Boadicea, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, etc.
I would like to see data supporting the idea that men are more likely to support parties that lead to wars, and if its true the reasons why.
In less safe societies and situations men were pressured to take the risks to shield women. "Women and children first". That definitely was to the advantage of women and the detriment of men.
I did not said that countries run by women would never go to war. I made statement about majority of actual real world past wars. Men were dominating the leadership, the leadership made decision to go to war for reasons unrelated to womanhood, so the war it was. The fight was not "for women". Also, actual real world fathers and husbands preferred not to go to war. Their wifes also preferred them not to go to war.
> I would like to see data supporting the idea that men are more likely to support parties that lead to wars, and if its true the reasons why.
Men are more likely to support fascists - both in runup to WWII and now. You can see it in data. Large part of its appeal is warrior aesthetic and aggression. Also, men are more likely to vote republicans who are more hawks and start wars. The pro war parties and groups are dominated by men, because some men display their masculinity by endorsing wars. They think manly men should support war, they think it makes them manly, so they do. See Hegseth - he is basically a caricature of such man.
> In less safe societies and situations men were pressured to take the risks to shield women. "Women and children first". That definitely was to the advantage of women and the detriment of men.
When the plan crashes or there is a fight, there is no "women and children first". In actual ships wrecks, men were more likely to survive (so no, women had no precedes).
When the men are going to fight away, that is when they die more often. Men were obligated to stay in Ukraine while women and kids were allowed to stay. Men did major of Chernobyl work too. But, men complaining about "women and children first" they have seen in books, are no where near any situation where it might happen to them.
Besides, here is what I reacted to:
>Before, women would suffer the hardship and danger of childbirth, and in return men would take on the physical perils of war.
No, there was no such "deal" made. Childbirth being safer now does not change it, drones dont change it and world having more peaceful period last decades dont change it.
> Men are more likely to support fascists - both in runup to WWII and now
Can you point me to the stats for that? There were lots of other differences in who voted for the Nazis for example, and the strongest is this: <a href="https://ajps.org/2017/08/10/who-voted-and-didnt-for-hitler-and-why/" rel="nofollow">https://ajps.org/2017/08/10/who-voted-and-didnt-for-hitler-a...
And apparently plenty of women did vote for the Nazis:
> NSDAP had been gaining proportionately more support from women than from men from 1928 onwards
Who are the current fascist parties you are referring to?
> Also, men are more likely to vote republicans who are more hawks and start wars
So you are basing this on the current voting pattern in one country at one point in history! Its not even consistently true - maybe at the last US election, but not consistently true.
> But, men complaining about "women and children first" they have seen in books
My point is that it was historically true.
> Childbirth being safer now does not change it, drones dont change it and world having more peaceful period last decades dont change it.
its a historical fact that women were at significant risk fo dying in childbirth, and men were at higher risk of dying in war or occupational accidents.
That is what Richars Evans wrote in his article about women and nazism. Who is an actual historian. Women vote might have been up, but men voted for them more. And men were literal members and activists. Women were more religious and voted more for different conservative party.
More importantly, right now if you look at current statistics, men are more likely to vote far-right.
> Who are the current fascist parties you are referring to?
AfD, Trump and Miller party, Farrage ... should I go through them all worldwide?
> its a historical fact that women were at significant risk fo dying in childbirth, and men were at higher risk of dying in war or occupational accidents.
1.) This is about "reasons for going to war" and deal between genders. Men do NOT go to war because of women or for women. They also do not go to die in war as some kind of compensation for childbirth.
2.) Women get killed in war. When those men leave the home for war, they kill women and children as much as civilian men. In modern wars, civilian causalities outnumber military ones.
3.) Now you are adding "occupational accidents" which is different category and completely unrelated. But also, people who oppose female soldiers, cops etc ... are men. Because they perceive her as encroaching on their territory.
> So you are basing this on the current voting pattern in one country at one point in history! Its not even consistently true - maybe at the last US election, but not consistently true.
It is consistently true for western world across elections. The only way to not see it is to not look at statistics. I am not saying it must be so due to some inherent biological difference. Historically, it did not mattered that much what population thought or what women thought - there were rules, those were mostly men and that was it. But right now, in our culture, the support for starting war is gender biased toward men.
Afd maybe.Calling Reform fascist is ridiculous hyperbole. In a two party system like the US people have to pick the least bad option given bundles of policies. Even with multiple parties.
Far right parties often oppose wars too. Where do these parties stand on involvement in Ukraine or Iran wars? Trumps first term was one of the most unaggresive US preidencies ever.
I was quoting an actual historian too.
> modern wars, civilian causalities outnumber military
but we are talking about historical wars. Being a soldier is still far riskier than being a civilian, and always was.
> In a two party system like the US people have to pick the least bad option given bundles of policies.
"Least bad option" can be anything and evolve itself into this or that. Conservatives intentionally evolved it into fascism. Which consistently happens to be supported more by men then by women. Importantly, that include wars.
And overall, men support wars more then women support wars.
> I was quoting an actual historian too.
Your historian is not opposing what Evans said. That quote does not imply women voted for men more then men overall. And your wiki ends with following "In terms of voting patterns however, a higher proportion of male voters supported the Nazi party compared to female voters".
Nazi started with low female vote and high male vote. Then it was changing and the difference between genders became smaller.
> but we are talking about historical wars. Being a soldier is still far riskier than being a civilian, and always was.
In the historical wars, civilians died more then soldiers. This goes especially for WWII. Being civilian where the war is means a lot of death. Especially physically weak people - old, children, women, sick. Soldiers happen to kill a lot of civilians, turns out.
In even older historical wars, soldiers lived literally from what they stole from the land. They were not carrying food for few weeks with them, they took it from locals. With violence and rape, obviously. At the time, food was actually expensive, people were able to grow around how much they needed. All that robbing meant additional deaths due to food missing. In addition to civilians killed to get that food or out of general frustration.
Wars happen where people live. They do not happen in some remote people-free empty fighting rings. They happen in cities, villages etc, because that is the stuff soldiers were sent to take over. And in the past, because that is where the food was.
I know that I'm not bringing the sources here, but I consider evidently clear that human males are more prone to violence and wars than human females. And I do believe that it is a biological difference, not a social construct. Same reason for females being more prone to nurture and caregiving.
I'm not saying that every male is more violent that every female or that every female wants or would be a good caregiver. I'm talking about averages here
I think that overplays the role of war. men did other things in general, such as going out to work and also dealing with other dangers. Even in developed economies male work related death rates are far higher than women's.
Childbirth might remain physical, but it is also extremely safe by historical standards. In the Uk the rate is just over one maternal death per 10,000 births including deaths shorty afterwards, compared to close to 50 in Victorian times (I think excluding subsequent deaths, although i am not sure).
Bearing children might remain physical, and bringing them up is hard work and goes on far longer than bearing them. IMO the solution it to change social expectations so men participate in raising children more. I see this is happening. its best of everyone: less of a load on women, men participate in the joy of having children properly, and kids grow up with better parental relationships and more parental attention in total.
> Before, women would suffer the hardship and danger of childbirth, and in return men would take on the physical perils of war.
The problem with this view is that the VAST majority of deaths in war are civilian deaths, which do not bound themselves by gender. It's only in recent decades that it's possible to contemplate conflicts with as few as 1 civilian death per combatant death, and even then, that's the extreme exception, not the rule.
In non-state warfare, the civilian casualty ratio is even worse--imagine living in "Eastern Europe in World War 2"-style casualty rates as the baseline of your existence. The typical battle in such circumstances isn't "two opposing armies meet on a battlefield, one army emerges victorious;" it's "we're going to sneak into your village, set fire to all your food stores, rape some of your women (maybe steal them for brides), and maybe whack off several of your children."
> In modern society, of course, conflict mostly means playing video games in an armchair.
I rather think most Ukrainian soldiers would disagree with you here.
Except that, women with college degrees and in higher socioeconomic groups marry as much as before. It poor people, poor women who stay single.
If your theory was true, it would be other way round. Poor women would be marrying and richer women would refuse marriage. That is not what we see in data.
>The best summary I have seen: Average women are no longer interested in average men. More details: Since women became economic equals to men, they are no longer interested in their economic equals.
I'm honestly baffled at these affirmations. I have lived in small and big cities, and this were never true anywhere I looked. Most of my friends are dating and most of them are not rich or richer than their partners. I go out and see a lot of couples. Are all these men making much more money than their partners? I have used dating apps as an average man and it sucks. But I got better at taking care of my looks and got some matches regularly. Not a lot, but enough to meet some women. I would have a harder time if dating apps didn't exist.
I'm not trying to minimize these experiences, though. I just never saw that happening as much as they say.
> I'm honestly baffled at these affirmations. I have lived in small and big cities, and this were never true anywhere I looked. Most of my friends are dating and most of them are not rich or richer than their partners. I go out and see a lot of couples. Are all these men making much more money than their partners?
Likely, the "income potential" of the man is much higher than the women, which is why is he attractive to the woman. When women are picking a man for marriage, probably the number one quality in a mate is existing or potential income/wealth.
> I have used dating apps as an average man and it sucks. But I got better at taking care of my looks and got some matches regularly. Not a lot, but enough to meet some women. I would have a harder time if dating apps didn't exist.
You are more attractive than you realise. I say that with no hate. You are probably above an average looks guy. You got a good haircut, cleaned-up your skin, got decent clothes, then took good photos. Millions of truly average men have tried this with little to no effect.
This app in particular attempts to overcome it by using a very clever sorting algorithm - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale%E2%80%93Shapley_algorithm" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale%E2%80%93Shapley_algorithm
Commercial dating apps are a market for lemons - as a woman, you can't quickly assess whether a partner will be compatible with you or not without investing substantial time and effort. Hypergamy is the expected equilibrium - if you're not sure about the long-term compatibility, you might as well go off of looks or cues of status alone. I would expect the outcome distribution of an app with a much better matching algorithm to be drastically less concentrated in the upper tail. Moreover, a state-run dating app lacks the perverse incentive to keep you swiping, frustrated and jealous.
I don't assume that. The supply of men on dating apps is greater than the supply of women, and they tend to be less picky and more open to short-term mate-seeking behavior. This means that the dynamic of these apps is more fundamentally shaped by aggregate preferences of women.
blodkorv · · focus · HN ↗
In sweden we have one semi popular dating site with minimal amount of matching algoritms and swiping and such and its no easier there to find a partner than on tinder.
dingaling911 · · focus · HN ↗
Had one drop me for a professional DJ.
A friend of mine was convinced she was going to marry a famous basketball player.
You can guess how these "relationships" went.
Super average women with one or two OUTSTANDING characteristics (get it.)
It's a real problem.
Fortunately, I already had kids when we were both younger and dumber which might ultimately be the solution: keep humans off social media until they're grandparents.
imtringued · · focus · HN ↗
Women are buying call options (hedge against rising prices) on men and the premium is the emotional damage that occurs when the market price on the guy falls below the strike price (turns out the man is a dud) and the woman refrains from pursuing the guy (no marriage).
It's poor in taste but I just can't unsee the similarity...
KellyCriterion · · focus · HN ↗
Sorry, no offense, but what are you doing, if I may ask?
Maybe she was still in her party age/too young?
(I know there are some DJs who are famous and millionaires, but most of them Ive met live a life that is more or less out of control)
dingaling911 · · focus · HN ↗
It was the other way around, she never partied. Nice gal.
throwaway2037 · · focus · HN ↗
The best summary I have seen: Average women are no longer interested in average men. More details: Since women became economic equals to men, they are no longer interested in their economic equals. They want men who earn (much) more money than them, and that makes those men very rare.
Specific to Sweden, is it really true that women now approach men? I heard about this trend in Denmark and Netherlands, but I am a bit suspicous because it is mostly anecdotal.
bluebarbet · · focus · HN ↗
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
Oh common. Those wars were not for the benefit of women. They were for the benefit of decision making men, the men who ruled. Which were not women. And the men in power sometimes used women as argument for why you should go invade this or that country, but then again appeal to patriotism was even stronger. There are limited situations, like Ukraine today which is defending where the "for other women and children" claim can kinda be made. And even there, fighers are motivated by more then just that.
Traditionally, you was fighting for your male ruler.
The war thing is not deal between sexes. Even today, men are more likely to support invasions, to support parties that lead country to wars.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
I would like to see data supporting the idea that men are more likely to support parties that lead to wars, and if its true the reasons why.
In less safe societies and situations men were pressured to take the risks to shield women. "Women and children first". That definitely was to the advantage of women and the detriment of men.
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
> I would like to see data supporting the idea that men are more likely to support parties that lead to wars, and if its true the reasons why.
Men are more likely to support fascists - both in runup to WWII and now. You can see it in data. Large part of its appeal is warrior aesthetic and aggression. Also, men are more likely to vote republicans who are more hawks and start wars. The pro war parties and groups are dominated by men, because some men display their masculinity by endorsing wars. They think manly men should support war, they think it makes them manly, so they do. See Hegseth - he is basically a caricature of such man.
> In less safe societies and situations men were pressured to take the risks to shield women. "Women and children first". That definitely was to the advantage of women and the detriment of men.
When the plan crashes or there is a fight, there is no "women and children first". In actual ships wrecks, men were more likely to survive (so no, women had no precedes).
When the men are going to fight away, that is when they die more often. Men were obligated to stay in Ukraine while women and kids were allowed to stay. Men did major of Chernobyl work too. But, men complaining about "women and children first" they have seen in books, are no where near any situation where it might happen to them.
Besides, here is what I reacted to:
>Before, women would suffer the hardship and danger of childbirth, and in return men would take on the physical perils of war.
No, there was no such "deal" made. Childbirth being safer now does not change it, drones dont change it and world having more peaceful period last decades dont change it.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
Can you point me to the stats for that? There were lots of other differences in who voted for the Nazis for example, and the strongest is this: <a href="https://ajps.org/2017/08/10/who-voted-and-didnt-for-hitler-and-why/" rel="nofollow">https://ajps.org/2017/08/10/who-voted-and-didnt-for-hitler-a...
And apparently plenty of women did vote for the Nazis:
> NSDAP had been gaining proportionately more support from women than from men from 1928 onwards
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Nazi_Germany
Who are the current fascist parties you are referring to?
> Also, men are more likely to vote republicans who are more hawks and start wars
So you are basing this on the current voting pattern in one country at one point in history! Its not even consistently true - maybe at the last US election, but not consistently true.
> But, men complaining about "women and children first" they have seen in books
My point is that it was historically true.
> Childbirth being safer now does not change it, drones dont change it and world having more peaceful period last decades dont change it.
its a historical fact that women were at significant risk fo dying in childbirth, and men were at higher risk of dying in war or occupational accidents.
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
More importantly, right now if you look at current statistics, men are more likely to vote far-right.
> Who are the current fascist parties you are referring to?
AfD, Trump and Miller party, Farrage ... should I go through them all worldwide?
> its a historical fact that women were at significant risk fo dying in childbirth, and men were at higher risk of dying in war or occupational accidents.
1.) This is about "reasons for going to war" and deal between genders. Men do NOT go to war because of women or for women. They also do not go to die in war as some kind of compensation for childbirth.
2.) Women get killed in war. When those men leave the home for war, they kill women and children as much as civilian men. In modern wars, civilian causalities outnumber military ones.
3.) Now you are adding "occupational accidents" which is different category and completely unrelated. But also, people who oppose female soldiers, cops etc ... are men. Because they perceive her as encroaching on their territory.
> So you are basing this on the current voting pattern in one country at one point in history! Its not even consistently true - maybe at the last US election, but not consistently true.
It is consistently true for western world across elections. The only way to not see it is to not look at statistics. I am not saying it must be so due to some inherent biological difference. Historically, it did not mattered that much what population thought or what women thought - there were rules, those were mostly men and that was it. But right now, in our culture, the support for starting war is gender biased toward men.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
Far right parties often oppose wars too. Where do these parties stand on involvement in Ukraine or Iran wars? Trumps first term was one of the most unaggresive US preidencies ever.
I was quoting an actual historian too.
> modern wars, civilian causalities outnumber military
but we are talking about historical wars. Being a soldier is still far riskier than being a civilian, and always was.
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
"Least bad option" can be anything and evolve itself into this or that. Conservatives intentionally evolved it into fascism. Which consistently happens to be supported more by men then by women. Importantly, that include wars.
And overall, men support wars more then women support wars.
> I was quoting an actual historian too.
Your historian is not opposing what Evans said. That quote does not imply women voted for men more then men overall. And your wiki ends with following "In terms of voting patterns however, a higher proportion of male voters supported the Nazi party compared to female voters".
Nazi started with low female vote and high male vote. Then it was changing and the difference between genders became smaller.
> but we are talking about historical wars. Being a soldier is still far riskier than being a civilian, and always was.
In the historical wars, civilians died more then soldiers. This goes especially for WWII. Being civilian where the war is means a lot of death. Especially physically weak people - old, children, women, sick. Soldiers happen to kill a lot of civilians, turns out.
In even older historical wars, soldiers lived literally from what they stole from the land. They were not carrying food for few weeks with them, they took it from locals. With violence and rape, obviously. At the time, food was actually expensive, people were able to grow around how much they needed. All that robbing meant additional deaths due to food missing. In addition to civilians killed to get that food or out of general frustration.
Wars happen where people live. They do not happen in some remote people-free empty fighting rings. They happen in cities, villages etc, because that is the stuff soldiers were sent to take over. And in the past, because that is where the food was.
tuesdaynight · · focus · HN ↗
I'm not saying that every male is more violent that every female or that every female wants or would be a good caregiver. I'm talking about averages here
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
Childbirth might remain physical, but it is also extremely safe by historical standards. In the Uk the rate is just over one maternal death per 10,000 births including deaths shorty afterwards, compared to close to 50 in Victorian times (I think excluding subsequent deaths, although i am not sure).
Bearing children might remain physical, and bringing them up is hard work and goes on far longer than bearing them. IMO the solution it to change social expectations so men participate in raising children more. I see this is happening. its best of everyone: less of a load on women, men participate in the joy of having children properly, and kids grow up with better parental relationships and more parental attention in total.
jcranmer · · focus · HN ↗
The problem with this view is that the VAST majority of deaths in war are civilian deaths, which do not bound themselves by gender. It's only in recent decades that it's possible to contemplate conflicts with as few as 1 civilian death per combatant death, and even then, that's the extreme exception, not the rule.
In non-state warfare, the civilian casualty ratio is even worse--imagine living in "Eastern Europe in World War 2"-style casualty rates as the baseline of your existence. The typical battle in such circumstances isn't "two opposing armies meet on a battlefield, one army emerges victorious;" it's "we're going to sneak into your village, set fire to all your food stores, rape some of your women (maybe steal them for brides), and maybe whack off several of your children."
> In modern society, of course, conflict mostly means playing video games in an armchair.
I rather think most Ukrainian soldiers would disagree with you here.
lmz · · focus · HN ↗
In modern society, of course, most soldiers are not Ukrainian (or Russian).
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
If your theory was true, it would be other way round. Poor women would be marrying and richer women would refuse marriage. That is not what we see in data.
tuesdaynight · · focus · HN ↗
I'm honestly baffled at these affirmations. I have lived in small and big cities, and this were never true anywhere I looked. Most of my friends are dating and most of them are not rich or richer than their partners. I go out and see a lot of couples. Are all these men making much more money than their partners? I have used dating apps as an average man and it sucks. But I got better at taking care of my looks and got some matches regularly. Not a lot, but enough to meet some women. I would have a harder time if dating apps didn't exist.
I'm not trying to minimize these experiences, though. I just never saw that happening as much as they say.
throwaway2037 · · focus · HN ↗
blodkorv · · focus · HN ↗
vovavili · · focus · HN ↗
Commercial dating apps are a market for lemons - as a woman, you can't quickly assess whether a partner will be compatible with you or not without investing substantial time and effort. Hypergamy is the expected equilibrium - if you're not sure about the long-term compatibility, you might as well go off of looks or cues of status alone. I would expect the outcome distribution of an app with a much better matching algorithm to be drastically less concentrated in the upper tail. Moreover, a state-run dating app lacks the perverse incentive to keep you swiping, frustrated and jealous.
InexSquirrel · · focus · HN ↗
I... don't understand. Why do you think this is true for women but not men?
vovavili · · focus · HN ↗