Crowstep
1d ago
There's the famous statistic that at one point 17 women reproduced for every man. But if you trace down that claim, it's likely that such an event happened during our hunter gatherer past, not during civilization
My understanding is that it was during the bronze age, not among hunter-gatherers. And that it was driven, not by massive harems, but by warfare.
The men of one village/clan (who mostly share Y chromosomes due to their shared kinship) attack another clan/village, kill the men and take the women as war-brides. This wipes out the Y chromosomes of the conquered group but not the mitochondrial DNA from the women. The newly expanded clan branches off, forming new villages. So successful male genetic dynasties expand while unsuccessful ones are wiped out. Over time, you get the 1/17 ratio showing up in the genetic data.
It's not as if a typical family structure was one patriarch and 17 wives. More like one man with a wife from his own clan, plus maybe a slave-wife from a conquered clan.
Although you're absolutely right that polygamy is unstable, it also leads to lower birth rates. A polygamous man may have very high fertility, but his 2nd+ wives have lower fertility than if they'd just married monogamously.
Crowstep
1d ago
but we've had several posters talk about how younger women tend to stick together and just spend time with each other at bars/clubs/events in a way that wasn't necessarily true in the past.
I guess that's what I'm skeptical about. I was hitting on girls 15-20 years ago, and women going around in groups was normal then too. The old pickup guys designed strategies around it. The image of a young woman sitting at a bar waiting for men to hit on her was just a thing that happened on TV. Women, agreeable as they are, are more likely to say 'I'm just here to hang out with my friends' to a guy they're not interested in, rather than be truthful and say that they would be interested if he were better looking or more charismatic. So the guys on this forum are getting rejected, which is obviously frustrating, and taking the reasons women are giving literally, which is the classic male-female communication failing.
There doesn't seem to be good data from significantly far in the past but this source suggests that the decline in singles looking for love has been driven mostly by men, between 2019 and 2024.
Crowstep
1d ago
This conversation doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. I don't see a productive way to reconcile data with your 'lived experience'.
But I will address your last part:
a guy who argues a lot on the internet
That's everyone on this forum, including you.
and has gotten bitter about it
Bitter about what?
and this is driving your white knighting of women and attacks on young men.
My interest isn't in white knighting women. It's in lowering the temperature on the gender war. I'm happily married with kids and I want that for everyone. I think the decline is socialising, coupling, marriage and birth rates are all tragedies and so I argue (with data) against moralistic positions that blame either sex for what is clearly a technological issue. On this forum, that manifests as arguing with incels who think that the coupling decline is driven exclusively by women being bitches or being too picky, on Reddit it manifests as arguing with feminists who blame men for being misogynists or manchildren.
'Women and men have different media habits' is obviously not the key part of your argument that I'm addressing, it's that the coupling recession is the fault of women and not the fault of men, contrary to all the actual evidence that both sexes are retreating from the social sphere. The reduction in people coupling up isn't driven by men getting rejected and women doing the rejecting, it's driven by the men and women who aren't going outside at all.
Because from the perspective of forming a relationship, staying at home scrolling Instagram and staying at home playing video games are exactly the same.
I do try and steer away from Bulverism, but this really seems like you're just a guy who has gotten rejected a lot and is bitter about it, and this is driving your explanation of why coupling is decreasing. Am I wrong?
Crowstep
2d ago
Do you have any evidence for your description, beyond your own impression of what you've seen? Because by definition, you are not meeting either the men or the women who are not going out. And would I be right to assume that you belong to one of the groups you are talking about (i.e. men who go out to meet women and get rejected)? Because you can see how that might colour your perceptions.
Because come on, it would be a remarkable coincidence if this civilisation-destroying technological combo (the internet plus smartphones) had massive effects on women's approach to dating but no effects on mens' approach to dating whatsoever, and in spite of all the evidence showing that it is affecting both sexes in more or less the same way and in the same magnitude.
Crowstep
2d ago
That isn't borne out by the data. Women socialise in person more than men (although both are seeing massive declines), and screen time is essentially the same for men and women. Among young single people, men are slightly more likely to be 'looking' (67% vs 61%) but I would imagine that reflects the more passive nature of female romance.
Crowstep
2d ago
It's worth pointint out that it's not not 'our society' (western, anglophone), it's every society. People are just socialising less in person in every country on the planet.
So any advice has to start with this, go outside and talk to people in person.
Crowstep
5d ago
Better than LLMs trained exclusively on Reddit groupthink, that's for sure.
Crowstep
5d ago
Lebanon might pay a very high price for being such a divided society, but for the one guy that gets a guaranteed government office because he's a specific minority, it's a pretty good deal.
Except there aren't any countries, past or current, where Jews have benefitted from the kind of ethno-religious power sharing that we see in Lebanon or Singapore.
Crowstep
5d ago
Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic?
Do the mid-century fascists count as populist? Because if so, the Italian and Spanish fascists weren't antisemitic, as I mentioned. But why are we limiting ourselves to the past? How about basically all the national populist parties in Europe right now? Reform UK isn't antisemitic. The National Rally in France isn't antisemitic. Fidesz in Hungary isn't. Not Brothers of Italy. Nor, of course, is the MAGA movement.
by somewhere around 10x
I would love to see your workings-out for this claim.
There is a long history of homogeneous societies turning on Jews because domestic politics required a scapegoat.
That's pretty much it. They are a market-dominant minority that are distinctive enough to be considered an outgroup but not so distinctive to be considered a fargroup.
Crowstep
5d ago
What does that mean even mean for 'the Jews' to advocate for it? Do they have an international spokesman? Did they take a vote?
Unless of course you mean that you can cherry-pick some examples of left-wing American Jews and conclude that all leftist politics is an invention of the ethnic group you hate?
Crowstep
6d ago
That doesn't make sense. Western countries post-WW2 were much less hostile to Jews than Western countries now. Multiculturalism means a) more Muslims and b) more other foreigners who don't feel post-war guilt about the Holocaust. Aliyah from countries like France is going up as they become more multicultural, as French Jews flee their new Muslim neighbours.
After the establishment of Israel, Middle Eastern Jews fled (or were expelled from) ethnically and religiously diverse countries in order to move to Israel. Diversity means more ethnic conflict overall, which means more ethnic scapegoating of rich groups (i.e. Ashkenazim). Whereas a tiny Jewish population in a homogenous country are much less of a threat.
It's a mistake to overinterpret what happened in Germany. Hitler's rise was driven by Germany's humiliation in WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, and the growing threat of Communism. Other fascist regimes like Italy or Spain were fine with the Jews. Antisemitism was just an idiosyncrasy of Hitler, not a law of history.
Crowstep
10d ago
"Boy" is almost insulting to an of-age male in various instances (some related to racism), while "girl" is acceptable because it's considered flattering.
I know a Russian girl who got offended when someone referred to her as a woman. She said it made her sound old.
To move from being called 'madame-moiselle' to 'madame' is an unpleasant right of passage for every young French woman.
Really, the anglosphere is weird in that we think referring to a young woman as a girl might be a bad thing.
Crowstep
10d ago
No, its not unique to millenials, but I suspect that the environment they're in is creating pressures previous generations didn't experience at the social level.
How do we square that with the face that age gaps between husbands and wives are decreasing over time?
Crowstep
14d ago
Every government program expands until it all is essentially 70% fraud by most people’s understanding of what the program was suppose to fix.
Technophiles like to talk about guaranteed minimum income when the robots inevitably take all our jobs. I wonder if the process won't be more gradual. Disability and unemployment schemes expanding until they encompass basically everyone. The more people who lie in order to access the schemes, the less taboo there is for everyone else.
The only thing that seems to be stopping it is the status hit that people take from being unemployed. As much as I criticise building an identity around work, at least those people tend not to cheat the welfare system.
Crowstep
15d ago
you just read about random Jewish families with this kind of wealth
Well yeah, (non-Haredi) Ashkenazi Jews are rich, because they are intelligent, and intelligent people can make lots of money. That's a very different claim from saying that Jews are uniquely likely to pass down or hoard their wealth. In fact, a list of the countries with the highest private wealth to GDP ratio looks like this:
- Hong Kong
- Italy
- Spain
- Switzerland
- United States
Israel is down at number 46, between Bahrain and Slovakia.
It’s frowned upon by non Jews.
On this ranking of most charitable countries, Israel outperforms almost every European country on every metric. America and Israel both score highly, most likely because they are both very religious by rich country standards.
So yes there are more examples of Jews hoarding money in clans. Safras, Rothschild, Sassoons.
Here are a list of the wealthiest families:
- Ellison - Ashkenazi/Italian, although he explicitly rejects his Jewish heritage
- Walton - Anglo-American
- Arnault - French and 'devoutly Catholic'
- Tata - Indian
- Koch - Dutch-American
- Ortega - Spanish
- Ambani - Indian
- Mars - Euro-American, not Jewish
- Adani - Indian
- Slim - Lebanese
As far as I can tell, all you're doing is combining confirmation bias with a dislike of Jews. None of what you are saying has any factual basis.
You also never explained what exactly you mean by 'really bad things'. I suspect you deliberately elided between the ability to do bad things, and actually doing bad things, which allows you to infer they are committing evil without having to demonstrate it.
Crowstep
15d ago
The NFL as an organization wants to market more to hispanics at home and abroad
It seems to be like the tension is between the Superbowl as a piece of TV entertainment, and the Superbowl as part of American civic religion. The 'proposition nation' needs propositions, and if that proposition is 'we're going to replace you and make you speak Spanish, also Free Puerto Rico (even if approximately zero Puerto Ricans support this) then I'm sympathetic to the MAGA crowd for getting annoyed.
Crowstep
15d ago
Jews are not fully assimilated in America. They have values around money that white people do not. Mostly a desire you see pop up of generating large amounts of generational wealth which is looked down on by the rest of society. Plus an increased ability to do some really bad things.
[Citation needed]
From what I can gather, you are arguing that:
- Jews want to pass on wealth to their children (generational wealth)
- Non-Jewish Euro-Americans disapprove of passing on wealth to children (or maybe just when Jews do it)
- Jews are smart (increased ability)
- Jews use their intelligence to do (unspecified) 'really bad things'
Aside from the 3rd one, I don't think any of these things are true. Do you have any evidence?
Crowstep
18d ago
And perhaps it's simply that there is nothing to fight about. There is no toxoplasma, no scissor statement.
I think that's the main point. There is no apologetic side for the husband or his co-conspirators.
Speculatively, I would also say that Mme Pelicot being older has something to do with it. The instinctive aversion that women have to rape stems primarily from the fact that they are forced to carry the child of an inferior man they didn't choose, who is presumably absent. Men's instinctive aversion is that someone is doing this to 'our' women. Gisele was 58 when the rapes started, so our pregnancy alarms don't go off.
People are obviously sympathetic to Gisele, but I think the general reaction shades more towards confusion and disgust than outrage. As if her husband had sex with an animal or something.
Crowstep
19d ago
Sure, but they were segregationists; it wasn't about crime.
Seems like a remarkable coincidence, dontcha think? That the people being segregated just happened to have a murder rate that was 5-10 times higher than the majority population?
Saying 'they were segregationists' seems close to saying they were murderists.
Crowstep
19d ago
I would also like to know where you see countries in Europe falling on the spectrum. Growing up in the UK in the 90s it was pretty free range, but my impression is that modern parents here are much more paranoid (although not to the insane degree I read about in America).
Crowstep
19d ago
I feel like guys often pick the “waitress” over the girl boss.
Depends what you mean by often. Sure, it happens sometimes, but not enough to affect the stats, which show a clear relationship between spousal income. Rich men are also less likely to marry a woman significantly older or younger. This article has details it with many nice charts.
It was probably more common in the past, when people married outside their own class more often (think the lawyer who meets a nice girl at the local church vs at grad school)
Crowstep
20d ago
oranges obviously are far more convenient to eat if you don't have access to a knife
A knife? Why on earth do you need a knife to eat an apple?
Eat the whole damn thing, core and all! (You have my permission to throw away the stem)
Crowstep
21d ago
I see /r/Canada issued an obligatory reminder to not spread hate or misinformation. It is important to be careful.
They were deleting any comments about the shooter's identity until it was 'confirmed by the authorities'.
Which sounds fine, until you realise that the authorities were explicitly and deliberately lying. The shooter was not a female in a dress, he was a male in a dress.
It's frustrating to read about 'fascism' as if the sample size is enough to draw conclusions from. There were a handful of self-avowedly fascist regimes in 20th century Europe, and that's it. Even using the present tense to talk about fascism is misguided, because there are literally no governments that describe themselves as fascist, nor have their been for eighty years.
More options
Context Copy link