25 ms·

When Factory Jobs Vanish, Men Become Less Desirable Partners

272 points by hunglee2 10y ago

sauronlord 10y ago
I am ashamed that tax dollars were used for such a study. Poor men cannot afford weddings and children. Shocking.
PunchTornado 10y ago
Too many things are linked to jobs. It will be a hard thing to break. I wonder if the universal basic income will be enough to make the societal shift needed in this case.
- daodedickinson 10y ago
  Well, what do you think the cause of hypergamy is?
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Natural selection, I think. It's not a term that I was familiar with, but a little digging found this:[0] > The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them. That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post. OK, so I'm a guy, and I can say for sure that this is what I always wanted. Most of the time, I wasn't attractive enough, because I was too self-conscious and nerdy. But I did manage it for a few years, until STDs took me down :( Anyway, there's also this about women: > A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning. That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along. That's consistent with what the parent article concludes, I think. It's just that there aren't many good plates left. 0) https://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/ https://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/ Edit: Responding to therpe1, I'm no evolutionary biologist, and I get that I've quoted a guy with quite an agenda. Still, the distinction that he draws fits will with the biology that I learned, and my personal experience. But please, do cite evidence.
    - therpe1 10y ago
      Has HN really sunk to this level of pseudo-science? I do think it's interesting that as capitalism begins to shed people/jobs en masse -- and it's kind of the same thing because once you get rid of the jobs you inevitably have to get rid of the people even if its through very indirect like skyrocketing health insurance premiums -- people need to devise these kind of elaborate justifications based on evolutionary non-science. I guess it's easier to believe that all women are saving themselves for millionaires and alpha-males than it is to admit the basic truth that under capitalism everyone and everything is disposable in the name of accumulation. > That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. It's laughable. This guy really has limited experience with women.
    - 3131s 10y ago
      I don't even know where to start with that garbage article. First, most everybody has a natural urge to have sex with a lot of hot people. It's just that some people (women, for instance) will face greater opprobrium from their families and communities for doing so. That doesn't stop all women though. Many do in fact have sex with multiple men at a time. I am open to talking about the statistics of how many men vs. how many women do this, but I would not make conclusions involving stupid plate-spinning metaphors as that article does. And actually, the only stats I can find indicate that women tend to engage in polyamory more so than men [1]. And whether or not you're personal preferred lifestyle is to settle down, it's pretty much irrelevant when you're speaking about men generally. I have had a very high number of sexual partners, but I chose to then get married and have a single sexual partner. It's not because I would have been unable to keep sleeping around. I get approached by women more now than ever before and I'm not lying to say that I could find a new attractive sexual partner every day. I don't want to though. So, my experience and attitude directly contradict that passage you quoted. [1] http://www.advocate.com/current-issue/2016/1/08/polyamory-numbers http://www.advocate.com/current-issue/2016/1/08/polyamory-nu...
      - mirimir 10y ago
        Yes, there's strong selection for sexual desire :) And yes, men have traditionally had more slack about being promiscuous. However, over several years in an extended polyamory community, I found it far more common for women to push for commitment and monogamy than for men. And that's what I've heard about current app-based hookup culture.
- Red_Tarsius 10y ago
  I fear that universal basic income might be the nail in the coffin of marriage and monogamy. Basically, government would replace any need for a male provider. It's a recipe for disaster. Civilization is built on monogamous relationships: children being raised by a couple (statistically a far better environment than single parenthood), young men and women focusing their energy for the betterment of society.
  - rimantas 10y ago
    Repeating a statement will not make it a fact.
    - Red_Tarsius 10y ago
      I wrote this comment before the one above. I'm open to other points of views if you write them down. I can't tell you for certain whether my statement is an absolute fact, but there seems to be some truth in it that is worth thinking about. Are you aware of any thriving, long-lasting society that rejects monogamy?
      - throwanem 10y ago
        You probably need to explain Iceland, for a start.
        sheepmullet 10y ago
        Does Iceland reject monogamy? I always thought their divorce and breakup rate was a lot lower than in the US?
        marchenko 10y ago
        Iceland has low rates of marriage, but is fairly conventional about monogamy. Iceland also has roughly as many residents as Tulsa, OK - a population just large enough to avoid inbreeding depression.
        10y ago
godmodus 10y ago
Again this link? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791645
- saycheese 10y ago
  It happens, if I were you I'd just repost that comment here as another top level comment.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
rmason 10y ago
I'm not sure if those living on the coast can relate, but that article sure explains what I've seen over the last 35 years here in Michigan.
brohoolio 10y ago
Reminds me of the book Tally's Corner. The lack of consistent work caused all sorts of interesting outcomes for society.
meric 10y ago
The article claims the effect of varying employment levels on society are different depending on gender- lower male employment means lower marriage rates. Lower women employment means higher marriage rates. Lower marriage rates imply higher numbers of children born out of wedlock. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to have disadvantaged backgrounds. But increasing number of single mothers reduce the stigma of being a single mother, and allowing single mothers to "soldier on".
- Red_Tarsius 10y ago
  Civilization is built on monogamy. People might not like the sound of it, but that's the reality of the situation. This is why all successful cultures and religions promote marriage, while tagging everything else as 'degeneracy'. You can't build a society if 90% of men are frustrated, disenfranchised and blow things up, and children are raised by single parents. You need a social contract that gives men a purpose and a legacy (sex), so that they can focus their efforts toward the development of the tribe. EDIT: To clarify, I do NOT condone violence toward non-traditional arrangements. Sorry if I came off that way.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    At this point the men you discuss are sitting around playing video games and doing oxy. They don't seem to be threatening society in any way. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21...
    - toyg 10y ago
      And electing Trump for a laugh. Totally non-threatening. /s
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        The article suggests their civic engagement is low, so likely most of them didn't vote. Would love better data on this though.
crdoconnor 10y ago
This parallels what's happened in Japan, too (the decline of Salarymen, rise in temp work and the decline in birthrate + marriage & relationships).
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Doesn't Japan have low unemployment and a relatively strong manufacturing sector?
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    As does the United States. It's not about overall unemployment, it's about the ratio of shitty jobs : non-shitty jobs.
bitL 10y ago
Some people from former Yugoslavia mentioned that during the war all women clustered around the few men that had means for survival and who led gangs or were involved in all kinds of shady business bringing in resources. I guess the effect described in the article is similar.
- hunglee2 10y ago
  It would be interesting to see studies on this. Intuitively this makes sense - in times of societal breakdown, the ability to violently compete for resources will return as a key signal of fitness
- gotchange 10y ago
  I hate to sound this much politically incorrect but women in these times of social unrest and upheaval turn into resources themselves and this clustering, as you described it, would be more of involuntary and less of at will. This doesn't mean that women in these situations wouldn't tend to gravitate toward the most power male with the largest resources in the pack but in most case it's the other way around.
  - pasquinelli 10y ago
    Which is really more politically incorrect to say, that women are basically looking for a man to provide for them, or that, more or less, pimps are survivors?
- curun1r 10y ago
  It's similar to the entirety of human history, minus the last little bit. The notion of most men finding female partners is a relatively recent development. Throughout most of our history, most men haven't procreated. There was a story posted here a while back that cited DNA analysis to show that humans have roughly twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Apparently, the historical averages are around 80% of females that reproduced and only around 40% of males that did. It sounds like we experienced a brief period of middle-class prosperity that made that phenomenon far less pronounced and we're now seeing a regression back to the norm. I'm not making a value judgment or saying we should want this disparity, just pointing out that throughout our history, it's mostly been this way.
1897234234 10y ago
Modern life is just bizarre, and especially so for men. We used to perform tasks that were immensely valued by women. Our rewards were directly dependent on our abilities. We worked hard and we achieved goals. Modern life is none of those things for most men. There is very little difference between the pay in many jobs, whether they are typically performed by men or women. These jobs often don't reward you for your abilities but rather reward you for who you know or how good your are at politics. Most jobs are also boring. With the money obtained, whether you are male or female, you can go and buy your meat at the supermarket and pay someone to build your house and so on. Men seem to have been replaced by a master-slave relationship with masses of people working for a small group of large companies that provide for both men and women. It is like large businesses are the new man. I feel like they are a middle-man that simply should be replaced. I tend to agree with the unabomber in that modern life simply isn't compatible with humans.
- empath75 10y ago
  When you say sentences like the last one, you might want to consider getting psychological help. There are all kinds of critics of modern life one could reference that aren't mass murderers.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Why the ad hominem? Just because he was a terrorist doesn't mean that all his opinions were invalid.
    - empath75 10y ago
      The only reason anyone knows what he thought is that he murdered people until he forced the media to publish his depraved opinions. He wasn't an original thinker. There are plenty of people who wrote critiques of modern life that didn't have to murder people to get attention for them.
      - Sandwich388 10y ago
        You're not writing any concrete argument. You have to use intellectual concepts to fight another intellectual concept. Adhominem isn't helping at all here.
watwut 10y ago
"They found that manufacturing declines significantly affected the supply of what they termed “marriageable” men—men who are not drinking or using drugs excessively and who have a job. (...) the numbers of marriageable men relative to women declined, because men had migrated elsewhere, joined the military, or fallen out of the labor force." How many in which category? The article treats men who moved away as the same problem as being junkie. Social problems like alcoholism and drugs are talked about as if they would be same as being unemployed. It is odd conflation, it is not the same, not even nearly.
- taurath 10y ago
  Tells you how far society would have to go to ever accept able bodied people not working for a living.
  - Razengan 10y ago
    The root problem seems to be that we have made money (or rather, the ability to make some) an ends instead of a means. I don't know how all of the 8 billion people on this planet can be expected to meaningfully contribute to something (that can't be done better and more cheaply for everyone by automation) and "earn" their money, without seriously crippling technological advancement (e.g. the advent of self-driving vehicles, or robot lawyers/doctors.)
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      In many parts of the world we find work for most people. Robots haven't taken most of the jobs yet. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_our_jobs.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_ou...
      - dkersten 10y ago
        But even many of these jobs could be (and eventually will be) automated. I find the very concept of having to "find work for people" to be flawed. Why should people be expected to work bullshit (often soul destroyingly meaningless) unnecessary busy-work jobs?
godmodus 10y ago
I disagree with the title and message with its overall sentiment. Yes, old school partnerships are dying, but that doesn't make males more disposable. If anything,it gives men and women more options and opens up our society to fine tuning. (effects of large scale single momhood/dadhood, competetive job markets and novel family and supporting social structures) the old was nice, but if a single unit can function and achieve what a complex unit used to, wed all benefit. Supposing the experiment doesn't end in failure and twist society. Though even if it does, we'll self correct. After all, nature still rules us. It's a culture of work hard, fuck-young and marry-old(er) for partnership for the coming future, we'll see where that takes us.
- 127 10y ago
  I don't see how factory jobs vanishing give men more options. Yes, for the lucky few who still have marketable jobs that aren't subsidized by the public sector, they have more money and options. For the vast majority of men, the job market is a much more brutal place than it was before with a lot fewer actual options.
  - godmodus 10y ago
    I understand your argument, but it assumes humans don't adapt. So what if the coal mines close down? We dont live in aculture where needs stop evolving. Where there's a need, there's industry of some sort. Humans brains adapt, especially generationally. I dont see Germany suffering any detrimental consequences of the modern workplace (where I am right now) and infact it's flourishing. That Said, the education system and the industrial system works close together here, and it's a better system than most. So countries need to pitch in to the effort if educating it's populace for modern day jobs
    - sheepmullet 10y ago
      Germany is one of the few countries that has kept a manufacturing base and a manufacturing based workforce.
closeparen 10y ago
If you're ever in doubt about tech's sexism problem, revisit one of the HN comment threads where gender roles come up and marvel at the unchecked support for the idea that women should be stay-at-home mothers. Then, for bonus points, check out a divorce thread. Civilization was built on all sorts of identity-based subjugation relationships and as we chip away at them, in the long run, it gets better. If your implicit assumption is true (women only stay in relationships because they require a partner's income to survive) then we have a moral imperative to provide escape hatches from those toxic relationships as quickly as possible.
- jules 10y ago
  This is what's wrong with politics today. Every question gets moralised. Every opinion gets evaluated on a scale from angel to bigot instead of true to false.
  - Infinitesimus 10y ago
    It is a bit problematic that the original comment doesn't seem to consider women as potential provider for a family and the narrative is centered around a male provider.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      True. The study found that women are coping better with deindustrialization than men are. It's just that they're raising children alone.
    - phkahler 10y ago
      Evolution has made men the provider. In the old days (not even that long ago) being pregnant makes a woman vulnerable, while raising children takes time and effort. It made sense for a male to provide for his family while the female was less able to do so. The gender roles are a result of evolution, and womens desire for a man with social and/or economic standing are just as ingrained as a mans desire for visual signs of fertility in a woman.
mvitorino 10y ago
I find it odd that the article manages to completely ignore/miss the effect of welfare and the change in incentives it may result in. Also, it appears that statistically, single mothers are much more likely to vote Left than Right. In the sci-fi movie Advantageous, a future society with a lot more automation, has high unemployment rates. Recruitment (which in the movie is mostly done by AI) eventually evolves to a consensus whereby most jobs are assigned to men because otherwise society would become a lot more dangerous to everyone. EDIT: References: [1] 74% of single mothers voting Democrat [2] one quarter voting Republican [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/single-mothers-give-presidential-politics-a-new-perspective/2013/06/02/b8f85702-cb90-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?utm_term=.dd8a17e22032 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/single-mothers-give-... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/single-mothers-with-family-values.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/single-moth...
- Drumlin 10y ago
  > Also, it appears that statistically, single mothers are much more likely to vote Left than Right. If you're married to the state, then you vote for more of the state. It's one of the many examples where liberty has been eroded in recent decades, but few talk about it because it's a sensitive topic.
  - mvitorino 10y ago
    Absolutely. For a country referred to as "the land of the free" you surely have a lot of "sensitive topics". As soon as I posted my comment, I started getting down-voted. I believe the post was quite factual, not offensive in any way or prejudicial, so I can only imagine it was affecting someone's sensitivity.
    - Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
      Why do you attribute it to welfare instead of the habitual villainization of single mothers by Republicans? I wouldn't vote for someone who disparages my life situation, particularly if it were a difficult one.
jahaja 10y ago
Presenting a rose-tinted view of american history must be HN's national sport.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't post generalizations about HN as a rhetorical device. Plenty of differing views on American history get expressed here—unfortunately often leading to flamewars. That's in the nature of inflammatory material, and your comment certainly doesn't help. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795608 and marked it off-topic.
  - jahaja 10y ago
    That is not a "differing view". It's a blatantly incorrect view - as indicated by the reply of the account you subsequently banned. But I accept your disapproval of my jibe towards HN.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
andai 10y ago
Well, I guess us guys will just have to start marrying each other!
jomohn 10y ago
At the rate of which women are approaching fields like IT, I think women are equally as screwed. There are not a lot of women that have the heart and commitment to programming or any other field in IT.
phkahler 10y ago
If you read TRP there is really nothing to see in this article at all. It's nothing but confirmation of what we already know. Socio-economic status is what matters to women. It's an evolutionary adaptation that's still in play.
- Pharylon 10y ago
  Let's not jump to evolutionary psychology to explain the phenomenon. It's also possible that the woman is just making a rational decision for the well-being of her children. A single mother who marries a man with low earnings and no real prospect of ever earning more will mean she's scraping by the rest of her life. If she believes she has a realistic chance of marrying someone who earns more, it's logical to continue to play the field.
  - naasking 10y ago
    I don't know what single mothers have to do with any of the discussion here. At best, they're a small subset of the total number of women that would exhibit the described behaviour. Finally, it's pretty sexist to imply that it's justified for the woman to make a rational decision for her children, rather than both parents deserving equal weight in deciding the well-being of their children.
    - Pharylon 10y ago
      The article was about women getting married less, even when they had children. So it has everything to do with the discussion. Also, sure, both parents can make decisions for the well-being of the child, but if you're implying that the woman should marry the man if she doesn't want to because he wants to marry her, then you're the one being sexist. The parent to my original reply is invoking evolution to explain why a woman would or wouldn't want someone as a partner. Those arguments always end up being sexist, attributing women's desires not to rational decision making but to whatever desires the man imagines evolution has instilled into the woman.
      - 10y ago
imgabe 10y ago
It sounds like manufacturing jobs left, so the men have no jobs, but the women still have jobs. Yes? Why won't the men compete for the jobs the women are getting? Alternatively, the men could stay home and take care of the kids while the women work at the jobs they have, providing the stable two-parent household. It seems like a large portion of the problem is tied up in men's idea of what constitutes a "manly" role. I don't mean to trivialize the difficulty of changing one's perspective, but changing diapers has to be a better option than dying from an Oxycontin overdose doesn't it?
- smhost 10y ago
  It's not just a changing of one's perspective. It's the destruction of your whole identity. It feels incredibly jarring and like you're going insane. It's what people with personality "disorders" have to go through to "fix" themselves to fit society.
- ro_sharp 10y ago
  Is it just men's idea of a "man's role" that's a problem? The article seems to suggest women's preferences are also in play.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  No matter how much feminism pretends otherwise, women are not keen to form lasting relationships with unemployed men. The reality on the ground is that many women consider extended unemployment a good-enough reason to end a marriage. A cynical but not unrealistic view is that humans tend to display loyalty to performed roles in relationships, not to individuals. If one individual stops performing their assigned role, the relationship ends.
  - bigmanwalter 10y ago
    Women who don't date men without a job are like men won't date a woman with a career. There's plenty of sexism on both sides.
    - 10y ago
wingless 10y ago
The traditional gender roles that formed alongside our evolution are broken today: men still crave women's affection, but women no longer need men to provide them. Because of this we were able to abolish traditional marriage, which was the only thing that kept the society sane. Yes, women were oppressed, but not without reason: women are hypergamous by nature. There's a non-negligible population of fully grown virgin men with very little chance of marriage or reproduction. Can you give them a reason to work and be productive? Can you give them a reason to live? Mark my words, we'll hear more and more about lonely men going on shooting sprees or committing suicide (if anyone cares enough to report them).
- dang 10y ago
  > women were oppressed, but not without reason That's completely unacceptable. We've banned this account. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise never to post anything like this again, or anything close to it. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795585 and marked it off-topic.
  - wingless 10y ago
    Why is it unacceptable? No, I will not email you to get my account unbanned. You haven't even explained why I was banned.
  - adrienne 10y ago
    It's fascinating to me how you banned this comment, but not the 400 comments above it that make basically the same point without saying these exact words.
cmdrfred 10y ago
8,000 years ago they estimate that 17 women reproduced for every 1 man[0]. In a society without work for most men, I suspect a similar ratio to arise again. Especially if we continue to tell young men to stop behaving like young men in order to attract women. [0]https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d#.f91mx82t4 https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-ev...
- mirimir 10y ago
  Wow, that is fascinating! I'm guessing polygamy plus slavery.
S4M 10y ago
Out of topic but... > This group includes Olivia Alfano, a 29-year-old single mother living in Evansville, Indiana, where she works as a waitress at Red Lobster. The money is pretty good, she told me: She drives a BMW and was able to buy a house last year. Am I the only one who is surprised by that? (I don't live in the US)
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  In the comments it was mentioned that she was arrested for involvement in a Haitian cocaine distribution ring out of Miami 7 years ago (as per an FBI press release)
- Neliquat 10y ago
  In some towns, Red Lobster is a very popular resturant. Its pretty terrible, but is seen as a splurge for the lower class. With the splurge status, tips are often decent compared to other family friendly establishments. Homes are pretty cheap outside the city there. Used bmw's are dirt cheap here, for any doubt see LeMons racing, which is packed with em, at a $500 budget (sans safety gear).
- JBiserkov 10y ago
  I was rather surprised as well (I don't live in the US either), but the Wikipedia page for the city offers several clues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evansville,_Indiana#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evansville,_Indiana#Economy
- scandox 10y ago
  I was surprised by this too. Childcare especially is very expensive where I live. It would hardly be worth going to work here. Edit: incoherence
- 0x445442 10y ago
  In addition to the other replies we have this interesting social custom in the U.S. where certain jobs have been arbitrarily recognized as worthy of extra compensation by the paying customers (tipping). So with a number of states raising minimum wage combined with tips and given the right conditions of cost of living, frugal living, and money management I could see it being pulled off.
wink 10y ago
This article confused me a little, I think it's neither here nor there regarding a main point. I mean, I get the basic facts, but I find it oddly jumping around between the men's situation, interjecting manual labor in fields that are dominated by women and then going off in the direction of single parents. Not that I would expect any kind of mentioning possible solutions, but this piece left me scratching my head a little .
sergiotapia 10y ago
"Women cannot go backwards in lifestyle." "She may not leave you the day you lose it, but the countdown has begun." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiZSG2vDMIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiZSG2vDMIo
loydb 10y ago
For a really deep dive (albeit an overly-scholastic one) into this topic, check out _Those Who Work, Those Who Don't: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America_ by Jennifer Sherman. It's a fascinating book (and makes me happy not to have been a logger).
JediPig 10y ago
Has anyone see the she beasts that the feminist community has put out ? If men dont have to provide for wife and 2 kids, he is GOING to have a lot of money left over if he has a job, and working part time or not at all comes an option. The recent mgtow movement is proof that men are sick of it and opting out.
cd_cd 10y ago
This articles is a bit flippant. The study apparently outlines a problem in these regions both socially and economically. The articles then goes on to pick a single case in order to imply that it's actually good news for women - and by inference nothing for us to be concerned about.
RileyKyeden 10y ago
You must not know many single mothers.
- cd_cd 10y ago
  I know plenty.
- betaby 10y ago
  On other side tax code, divorce laws are well know to 'penalize' men. Also Eric vs Lola case in Quebec and then federal.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  You must have issue picking up social cues if you fall for every sob story. The one bad thing about Hacker News is how many sheltered, 1st worlders there are in here that think everyone that isn't happy is an innocent victim of society. I'm tired of seeing women who openly brag about how they "popped someone's child to get their money" through whatever means necessary: "Oops" babies (intentionally missing birth control pills), faking pregnancy to have unprotected sex and even breaking condoms... but when the man leaves: she's a victim, poor her, what a scumbag. This happens every day all the time in the real world. And state policy has to be made upon it, unless it is your desire for it to be abused.
  - RileyKyeden 10y ago
    > The one bad thing about Hacker News is how many sheltered, 1st worlders there are in here that think everyone that isn't happy is an innocent victim of society. Love how bizarre this specific line is. Rest assured, I know what the real world is like. It's the same one we all live in, unfortunately, and we all see it through filters. Your filters have led you to prejudge people unlike yourself. Mine lead me to think you're grossly misinformed, arrogant, and not worth talking to further.
    - mixedCase 10y ago
      > Rest assured, I know what the real world is like. It's the same one we all live in Thanks for proving my point. Greetings from the privileged poor south american barrio I grew up in. And that wasn't ironic, as my dad was literally born in a mud hut and beat the odds to provide me a comfortable life where I can read in a foreign language how willingly ignorant some people are as to appear virtuous.
kstoneman 10y ago
The article implies that it's solely the woman's decision to marry, but the reality is more complicated. Many men are choosing not to marry since it is fraught with economic risk to do so. This has been building for a generation. > “You don’t want to marry a man who is in all likelihood not economically viable, because it’s not a free lunch,” Autor said. "Not economically viable" is the exact phrase used in the movie "Falling Down" by the man who was denied a loan by a bank and was arrested while the Michael Douglas character looks on sympathetically. His wife ditched him, too.
TheBobinator 10y ago
Polygamy is largely a function of Ego of both men and women. Women seek to acquire capital, status, and for their children to inherit the ego (mostly society's view of that ego) of the alpha male. Men seek to monopolize reproduction, as well as build a society that is secure to them, growing their ego's and power until they monopolize reproduction. Ego reaches it's peek when one believes they are omnipotent and omniscient, and spread that belief to the rest of society. Greek and Roman Gods are very much so an ego trip trying to continue itself. When times are good, we get war and harems. When times are bad, we get the downfall of society due to infighting. Very few individuals are happy with this arrangement, which is why it's been torn down so many times over the millennia. E.G. It's a common saying, the first generation builds the business, 2nd generation runs it, 3rd generation ruins it, and the history of empires tends to follow that trend. There's a reason we replaced Polytheism with monotheism, and that's so no one man could aspire to become a God. There's a reason why priests weren't supposed to marry and have children; clergy were the spiritual leadership of an ego driven society, trying to drive that society in a constructive direction. Monogamy is the practice of making the maximum investment in offspring that is feasible. The closer the union between man and women, the more complete the children will be; if the couple unconditionally loves each other, the child will unconditionally love themselves which comes out as confidence later in life. They also make every investment they can in their children (instead of in a bigger ego; bigger house, luxury car, vacations, and so forth). This in turn forced women to marry men for their physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual traits which was an indication you'd be a good breadwinner but more importantly, that the resulting offspring would be good members of society. What we've had in the last 60 years largely is a psychological war waged on the population in order to further the ego of the corporation or state. Ultimately, this is a self-defeating path; the ego of the corporation and state will ultimately monopolize reproduction but this prevents society from delivering to the state and corps what they need to survive. Ultimately, games of wage arbitrage have resulted in an economic system where the financial markets no longer represent actual production, and where investment in society has dwindled to the point we need to put in place unabated immigration, student loans, H1B's, and Outsourcing in order to continue propping up an already collapsed political system and economy. Democracy was originally invented to control the egos of leadership; Trump being elected is simply the electorate hiring someone who is completely against the ruling class and will tear them down, and this is not the first time this has gone on, although the volume of bitching the ruling elites have done is quite epic. First he's going to do away with the subsidies; H1B's, Immigration, eventually Student loans. Then he's going to begin up large corps while simultaneously restoring the middle class's income who will in turn, form their own tribal governing bodies and lobbying bodies. That in turn will bring the corporations and state in check. Women who chase ego never win, let them, ignore them, go find someone else. They will get what they deserve.
TheBobinator 10y ago
Polygamy is largely a function of Ego of both men and women. Women seek to acquire capital, status, and for their children to inherit the ego (mostly society's view of that ego) of the alpha male. Men seek to monopolize reproduction, as well as build a society that is secure to them, growing their ego's and power until they monopolize reproduction. Ego reaches it's peek when one believes they are omnipotent and omniscient, and spread that belief to the rest of society. Greek and Roman Gods are very much so an ego trip trying to continue itself. When times are good, we get war and harems. When times are bad, we get the downfall of society due to infighting. Very few individuals are happy with this arrangement, which is why it's been torn down so many times over the millennia. E.G. It's a common saying, the first generation builds the business, 2nd generation runs it, 3rd generation ruins it, and the history of empires tends to follow that trend. There's a reason we replaced Polytheism with monotheism, and that's so no one man could aspire to become a God. There's a reason why priests weren't supposed to marry and have children; clergy were the spiritual leadership of an ego driven society, trying to drive that society in a constructive direction. Monogamy is the practice of making the maximum investment in offspring that is feasible. The closer the union between man and women, the more complete the children will be; if the couple unconditionally loves each other, the child will unconditionally love themselves which comes out as confidence later in life. They also make every investment they can in their children (instead of in a bigger ego; bigger house, luxury car, vacations, and so forth). This in turn forced women to marry men for their physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual traits which was an indication you'd be a good breadwinner but more importantly, that the resulting offspring would be good members of society. What we've had in the last 60 years largely is a psychological war waged on the population in order to further the ego of the corporation or state. Ultimately, this is a self-defeating path; the ego of the corporation and state will ultimately monopolize reproduction but this prevents society from delivering to the state and corps what they need to survive. Ultimately, games of wage arbitrage have resulted in an economic system where the financial markets no longer represent actual production, and where investment in society has dwindled to the point we need to put in place unabated immigration, student loans, H1B's, and Outsourcing in order to continue propping up an already collapsed political system and economy. Democracy was originally invented to control the egos of leadership; Trump being elected is simply the electorate hiring someone who is completely against the ruling class and will tear them down, and this is not the first time this has gone on, although the volume of bitching the ruling elites have done is quite epic. First he's going to do away with the subsidies; H1B's, Immigration, eventually Student loans. Then he's going to begin up large corps while simultaneously restoring the middle class's income who will in turn, form their own tribal governing bodies and lobbying bodies. That in turn will bring the corporations and state in check. Women who chase ego never win, let them, ignore them, go find someone else. They will get what they deserve.
uptime 10y ago
A lot of the lessons here need to be built into the raising of young men. I can't claim to know all the topics we need to master, but hyping up and honoring any domestic labor has to be up there. Keeping a household running well is no joke. If you give any population a limited set of options for self and social worth, you're gonna have a bad time.
caseydurfee 10y ago
Sadly, I feel like a great number of comments in this thread could be summarized as: If a woman prefers a man with wealth or status, she's a gold-digger, and feminism is wrong about women -- they want traditional gender roles. Women are just naturally drawn to wealth and status despite what feminism says they should want. If a woman has sex with a man regardless of his wealth or status, she's a slut. Feminism is wrong about women -- they are naturally attracted to "bad boys", not "Good guys" who are responsible and work hard. "Good guys" are being cheated out of sex by women. If they support feminism despite the fact that women no longer value social/economic status, which reduces their chances to have sex, they are "white knights". If a woman won't have sex with a man, it's because she's a frigid bitch -- feminism has made men irrelevant. Feminism is responsible for suicide bombers and spree killers because they couldn't get sex from women. It's amazing to me how much pseudoscience and entrail-reading comes into discussions of gender. It's so tightly linked to our experience of the world that it's almost impossible not to spin one's own experiences into quasi-rational explanations. For example, this quote from the article: "A substantial number go on to have children with a second partner, or even a third, creating complex and unstable family lives that are not good for children." Says who? Human beings have pretty much always lived in extended clans with "complex family lives". The nuclear family is a pretty recent invention in the history of homo sapiens. The whole article seems to be trying to paint a picture that humans lived in nuclear families from the dawn of time to just a few years ago -- that it is taking children away from the way they are meant to be raised. In fact, this is bringing humans closer to the way they've pretty much always lived, in extended clans with complex family trees, with incredibly complex language for describing those relations. "This creates challenges for the people (usually women) who have to raise a child without the economic or social support of a partner. Their struggles are why the authors see such an uptick in children living in poverty in the aftermath of a decline in manufacturing employment." This is just terrible writing. Women raising children without support of a partner would, by definition, not be affected by the decline in jobs for men. The whole article (and many of the comments here about it) are filled with these kinds of self-refutations and self-fulfilling prophecies. People just start with a conclusion when it comes to gender and work backwards. I'm wary to offer my own opinions on these issues, because they might be just as full of confirmation bias, question begging, and social proof-seeking. Maybe human beings are just really bad at discussing this topic.
am_i_down 10y ago
My dog doesn't care that my factory job vanished.
Austin_Steven17 10y ago
Hello, Are you looking for financial freedom? are you in Debt, you need a loan to start a new business? or you collapse financially, you need a loan buying a car or a house? Have your bank in ever Finance refuse? You want to improve your financial? they need a loan your bills are paying off? not looking more, we welcome you for an opportunity to all types of loans get at a very affordable interest rates of 3% for other For information, contact us now by e-mail to:(jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com) Do you need a business loan? Do you need a personal loan? Do you want to buy a car? Do you want to refinance? Do you need a mortgage loan? Do you need a huge capital to start off your business proposal or expansion? Have you lost hope and you think there is no way out, and your financial burdens still persists? Company Name: JAYSON LOAN FIRM Company Email jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com Company NMLS ID: 315276 Please do not hesitate to contact us for possible business co-operation Contact us via email: (Jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com) or call +1-440-853-7705 Best Regards, Patrick Morgan.
Austin_Steven17 10y ago
Hello, Are you looking for financial freedom? are you in Debt, you need a loan to start a new business? or you collapse financially, you need a loan buying a car or a house? Have your bank in ever Finance refuse? You want to improve your financial? they need a loan your bills are paying off? not looking more, we welcome you for an opportunity to all types of loans get at a very affordable interest rates of 3% for other For information, contact us now by e-mail to:(jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com) Do you need a business loan? Do you need a personal loan? Do you want to buy a car? Do you want to refinance? Do you need a mortgage loan? Do you need a huge capital to start off your business proposal or expansion? Have you lost hope and you think there is no way out, and your financial burdens still persists? Company Name: JAYSON LOAN FIRM Company Email jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com Company NMLS ID: 315276 Please do not hesitate to contact us for possible business co-operation Contact us via email: (Jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com) or call +1-440-853-7705 Best Regards, Patrick Morgan.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
usmeteora 10y ago
As a female engineer perpetually in male dominated environments whether at work or at a bar being served mostly by male bartenders who I have come to build a repore with. It ends up being a casual mutually beneficial way to exchange banter and discuss social life but get perspectives and experiences from people who lead very different lives, and here is what I find. I find that most lower middle class men struggling to find jobs who have a complaint about this DO NOT have an issue finding women. They have an issue with women who do not financially contribute, and trap them into paying child support for a kid they never planned on having, and women who feel entitled to men being the sole provider, stripping away their freedom, and them men are trying to get away from women and commitments, not towards them. They are looking to travel and have experiences and do things they enjoy instead of repeating the failures they saw their parents go through. Theyve seen their parents fight over money, their dads lose jobs, their parents get divorced and I don't know who is asking for that life back but I think its the older men who lost everything because I don't know any noneducated man my age that actually wants that, they are running away from it at all costs. I not only find this with lower middle class men but men I work with as well. They are getting sick and tired of being manipulated by women and trapped into families they never planned to or agreed to and being expected to do all the work financially for the rest of their lives... I find in male dominated environments with men of higher socioeconomic status, that they end up dating financially needy women who are incentivized to lock them into a long term financial relationship because theres not enough economically independent women to date. Additionally, I find women like me tend to be much more attractive to them for the reason that working women doing well and climbing the socioeconomic ladder by ourselves are attractive because we have ambition, which in their socioeconomic stratus is not something they are conditioned to, so not only is it attractive because you have more in common to talk to someone about, but its also from their point of view rather exotic and rare, and thus instantly more desireable. While a comment below stating chinese stats is generally worriesome, in America, the issue is not that lower income men can't get women, its that they cant get the women that they want. While most of the comments talk about how these women need to be more openminded, I find myself as a socioeconomic 26yr old woman progressing in my technical career in engineering and software development, I find that there is not nearly enough women, and that we need many more. IF this happens (and that happening whether its happening and causes behind it happening or not is a WHOLE different discussion) over time then the standards men have for women will raise. While these men are pining after women who in reality don't exist in great numbers, just highly highlighted, the other 95% of women are incentivized to compete on a personal and economic level if they find men on their level and above their socioeconomic level are choosing women who make their own money, and they will begin to understand they are the only ones providing for themselves and over time women will seep into previously considered male dominated environments and take on more management and leadership roles. Over the long run, this will hopefully allow men and women to engage in short or long term relationships or whatever they choose as we all become more accepting and openminded based on the person and less on the economic benefits they can provide. Progress is painful, and as one of the few women pioneering in it, I get pressure form men i work with to date and marry, men who serve me drinks to date and marry, and I get hate and drama from all the girls who are mad at me for making more money than them (who have no problem dating men with money but lots of problems with women making money, and can't seem to solve that issue in their head) In general, its not as glamorous as it seems if you are actually a full time, preference for low drama female with your career as your first priority. Women like us are highlighted as the pain point of the issue, but we are not the cause of it, and over time hopefully the solution. The other complaint I have about this whole argument is if women are getting a higher socioeconomic status while men complain they don't have jobs, then there are clearly jobs, they are just stereotypically female jobs, so instead of men complaining that the universe isnt entitling and providing them to the (in the grand scheme of things incredibly fleeting and nonpermanent manufactoring jobs) they should be more open to becoming nurses, teachers, government jobs and other jobs that are clearly in a great shortage for that women are not only working full time side jobs while taking night classes to become nurses and etc but raising kids while doing it often times as a single parent. If they can do it men can do it, they just don't want to because its an uncomfortable stereotype to break, but in WWII many women stepped into manufactoring jobs to fill the void in America, so men need to do the same thing. For now its a bit of an awkward phase for men because they are used to being the ones that get to choose and women have always been very willing to compete in looks and otherwise to get access to that financial stability as it was the only socially acceptable way to do so for so long without permanently striating yourself into a considered deplorable condition. Men need to realize over time women becoming more independent is a good thing for everyone. Gorwing pains will always exist in society, its how we adapt to them that makes both men and women successful and competitive candidates in the working field and in the personal relationship realm. This ongoing complaint I keep hearing about men wanting to fall back into manufactoring jobs and women getting jobs is a more a complaint about how they wish things would never change and how they want people to accomodate them instead of steering the dicsussion to how to adapt to reality.

272 points by hunglee2 10y ago

I am ashamed that tax dollars were used for such a study. Poor men cannot afford weddings and children. Shocking.

Too many things are linked to jobs. It will be a hard thing to break. I wonder if the universal basic income will be enough to make the societal shift needed in this case.

daodedickinson 10y ago
Well, what do you think the cause of hypergamy is?
- mirimir 10y ago
  Natural selection, I think. It's not a term that I was familiar with, but a little digging found this:[0] > The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them. That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post. OK, so I'm a guy, and I can say for sure that this is what I always wanted. Most of the time, I wasn't attractive enough, because I was too self-conscious and nerdy. But I did manage it for a few years, until STDs took me down :( Anyway, there's also this about women: > A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning. That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along. That's consistent with what the parent article concludes, I think. It's just that there aren't many good plates left. 0) https://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/ https://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/ Edit: Responding to therpe1, I'm no evolutionary biologist, and I get that I've quoted a guy with quite an agenda. Still, the distinction that he draws fits will with the biology that I learned, and my personal experience. But please, do cite evidence.
  - therpe1 10y ago
    Has HN really sunk to this level of pseudo-science? I do think it's interesting that as capitalism begins to shed people/jobs en masse -- and it's kind of the same thing because once you get rid of the jobs you inevitably have to get rid of the people even if its through very indirect like skyrocketing health insurance premiums -- people need to devise these kind of elaborate justifications based on evolutionary non-science. I guess it's easier to believe that all women are saving themselves for millionaires and alpha-males than it is to admit the basic truth that under capitalism everyone and everything is disposable in the name of accumulation. > That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. It's laughable. This guy really has limited experience with women.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    I don't even know where to start with that garbage article. First, most everybody has a natural urge to have sex with a lot of hot people. It's just that some people (women, for instance) will face greater opprobrium from their families and communities for doing so. That doesn't stop all women though. Many do in fact have sex with multiple men at a time. I am open to talking about the statistics of how many men vs. how many women do this, but I would not make conclusions involving stupid plate-spinning metaphors as that article does. And actually, the only stats I can find indicate that women tend to engage in polyamory more so than men [1]. And whether or not you're personal preferred lifestyle is to settle down, it's pretty much irrelevant when you're speaking about men generally. I have had a very high number of sexual partners, but I chose to then get married and have a single sexual partner. It's not because I would have been unable to keep sleeping around. I get approached by women more now than ever before and I'm not lying to say that I could find a new attractive sexual partner every day. I don't want to though. So, my experience and attitude directly contradict that passage you quoted. [1] http://www.advocate.com/current-issue/2016/1/08/polyamory-numbers http://www.advocate.com/current-issue/2016/1/08/polyamory-nu...
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Yes, there's strong selection for sexual desire :) And yes, men have traditionally had more slack about being promiscuous. However, over several years in an extended polyamory community, I found it far more common for women to push for commitment and monogamy than for men. And that's what I've heard about current app-based hookup culture.
Red_Tarsius 10y ago
I fear that universal basic income might be the nail in the coffin of marriage and monogamy. Basically, government would replace any need for a male provider. It's a recipe for disaster. Civilization is built on monogamous relationships: children being raised by a couple (statistically a far better environment than single parenthood), young men and women focusing their energy for the betterment of society.
- rimantas 10y ago
  Repeating a statement will not make it a fact.
  - Red_Tarsius 10y ago
    I wrote this comment before the one above. I'm open to other points of views if you write them down. I can't tell you for certain whether my statement is an absolute fact, but there seems to be some truth in it that is worth thinking about. Are you aware of any thriving, long-lasting society that rejects monogamy?
    - throwanem 10y ago
      You probably need to explain Iceland, for a start.
      - sheepmullet 10y ago
        Does Iceland reject monogamy? I always thought their divorce and breakup rate was a lot lower than in the US?
        marchenko 10y ago
        Iceland has low rates of marriage, but is fairly conventional about monogamy. Iceland also has roughly as many residents as Tulsa, OK - a population just large enough to avoid inbreeding depression.
      - 10y ago

godmodus 10y ago

Again this link? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791645

saycheese 10y ago
It happens, if I were you I'd just repost that comment here as another top level comment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

rmason 10y ago

I'm not sure if those living on the coast can relate, but that article sure explains what I've seen over the last 35 years here in Michigan.

brohoolio 10y ago

Reminds me of the book Tally's Corner. The lack of consistent work caused all sorts of interesting outcomes for society.

meric 10y ago

The article claims the effect of varying employment levels on society are different depending on gender- lower male employment means lower marriage rates. Lower women employment means higher marriage rates. Lower marriage rates imply higher numbers of children born out of wedlock. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to have disadvantaged backgrounds. But increasing number of single mothers reduce the stigma of being a single mother, and allowing single mothers to "soldier on".

Red_Tarsius 10y ago
Civilization is built on monogamy. People might not like the sound of it, but that's the reality of the situation. This is why all successful cultures and religions promote marriage, while tagging everything else as 'degeneracy'. You can't build a society if 90% of men are frustrated, disenfranchised and blow things up, and children are raised by single parents. You need a social contract that gives men a purpose and a legacy (sex), so that they can focus their efforts toward the development of the tribe. EDIT: To clarify, I do NOT condone violence toward non-traditional arrangements. Sorry if I came off that way.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  At this point the men you discuss are sitting around playing video games and doing oxy. They don't seem to be threatening society in any way. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21...
  - toyg 10y ago
    And electing Trump for a laugh. Totally non-threatening. /s
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The article suggests their civic engagement is low, so likely most of them didn't vote. Would love better data on this though.

crdoconnor 10y ago

This parallels what's happened in Japan, too (the decline of Salarymen, rise in temp work and the decline in birthrate + marriage & relationships).

kalleboo 10y ago
Doesn't Japan have low unemployment and a relatively strong manufacturing sector?
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  As does the United States. It's not about overall unemployment, it's about the ratio of shitty jobs : non-shitty jobs.

bitL 10y ago

Some people from former Yugoslavia mentioned that during the war all women clustered around the few men that had means for survival and who led gangs or were involved in all kinds of shady business bringing in resources. I guess the effect described in the article is similar.

hunglee2 10y ago
It would be interesting to see studies on this. Intuitively this makes sense - in times of societal breakdown, the ability to violently compete for resources will return as a key signal of fitness
gotchange 10y ago
I hate to sound this much politically incorrect but women in these times of social unrest and upheaval turn into resources themselves and this clustering, as you described it, would be more of involuntary and less of at will. This doesn't mean that women in these situations wouldn't tend to gravitate toward the most power male with the largest resources in the pack but in most case it's the other way around.
- pasquinelli 10y ago
  Which is really more politically incorrect to say, that women are basically looking for a man to provide for them, or that, more or less, pimps are survivors?
curun1r 10y ago
It's similar to the entirety of human history, minus the last little bit. The notion of most men finding female partners is a relatively recent development. Throughout most of our history, most men haven't procreated. There was a story posted here a while back that cited DNA analysis to show that humans have roughly twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Apparently, the historical averages are around 80% of females that reproduced and only around 40% of males that did. It sounds like we experienced a brief period of middle-class prosperity that made that phenomenon far less pronounced and we're now seeing a regression back to the norm. I'm not making a value judgment or saying we should want this disparity, just pointing out that throughout our history, it's mostly been this way.

1897234234 10y ago

Modern life is just bizarre, and especially so for men. We used to perform tasks that were immensely valued by women. Our rewards were directly dependent on our abilities. We worked hard and we achieved goals. Modern life is none of those things for most men. There is very little difference between the pay in many jobs, whether they are typically performed by men or women. These jobs often don't reward you for your abilities but rather reward you for who you know or how good your are at politics. Most jobs are also boring. With the money obtained, whether you are male or female, you can go and buy your meat at the supermarket and pay someone to build your house and so on. Men seem to have been replaced by a master-slave relationship with masses of people working for a small group of large companies that provide for both men and women. It is like large businesses are the new man. I feel like they are a middle-man that simply should be replaced. I tend to agree with the unabomber in that modern life simply isn't compatible with humans.

empath75 10y ago
When you say sentences like the last one, you might want to consider getting psychological help. There are all kinds of critics of modern life one could reference that aren't mass murderers.
- tomp 10y ago
  Why the ad hominem? Just because he was a terrorist doesn't mean that all his opinions were invalid.
  - empath75 10y ago
    The only reason anyone knows what he thought is that he murdered people until he forced the media to publish his depraved opinions. He wasn't an original thinker. There are plenty of people who wrote critiques of modern life that didn't have to murder people to get attention for them.
    - Sandwich388 10y ago
      You're not writing any concrete argument. You have to use intellectual concepts to fight another intellectual concept. Adhominem isn't helping at all here.

watwut 10y ago

"They found that manufacturing declines significantly affected the supply of what they termed “marriageable” men—men who are not drinking or using drugs excessively and who have a job. (...) the numbers of marriageable men relative to women declined, because men had migrated elsewhere, joined the military, or fallen out of the labor force." How many in which category? The article treats men who moved away as the same problem as being junkie. Social problems like alcoholism and drugs are talked about as if they would be same as being unemployed. It is odd conflation, it is not the same, not even nearly.

taurath 10y ago
Tells you how far society would have to go to ever accept able bodied people not working for a living.
- Razengan 10y ago
  The root problem seems to be that we have made money (or rather, the ability to make some) an ends instead of a means. I don't know how all of the 8 billion people on this planet can be expected to meaningfully contribute to something (that can't be done better and more cheaply for everyone by automation) and "earn" their money, without seriously crippling technological advancement (e.g. the advent of self-driving vehicles, or robot lawyers/doctors.)
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    In many parts of the world we find work for most people. Robots haven't taken most of the jobs yet. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_our_jobs.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/robots_didnt_take_ou...
    - dkersten 10y ago
      But even many of these jobs could be (and eventually will be) automated. I find the very concept of having to "find work for people" to be flawed. Why should people be expected to work bullshit (often soul destroyingly meaningless) unnecessary busy-work jobs?

godmodus 10y ago

I disagree with the title and message with its overall sentiment. Yes, old school partnerships are dying, but that doesn't make males more disposable. If anything,it gives men and women more options and opens up our society to fine tuning. (effects of large scale single momhood/dadhood, competetive job markets and novel family and supporting social structures) the old was nice, but if a single unit can function and achieve what a complex unit used to, wed all benefit. Supposing the experiment doesn't end in failure and twist society. Though even if it does, we'll self correct. After all, nature still rules us. It's a culture of work hard, fuck-young and marry-old(er) for partnership for the coming future, we'll see where that takes us.

127 10y ago
I don't see how factory jobs vanishing give men more options. Yes, for the lucky few who still have marketable jobs that aren't subsidized by the public sector, they have more money and options. For the vast majority of men, the job market is a much more brutal place than it was before with a lot fewer actual options.
- godmodus 10y ago
  I understand your argument, but it assumes humans don't adapt. So what if the coal mines close down? We dont live in aculture where needs stop evolving. Where there's a need, there's industry of some sort. Humans brains adapt, especially generationally. I dont see Germany suffering any detrimental consequences of the modern workplace (where I am right now) and infact it's flourishing. That Said, the education system and the industrial system works close together here, and it's a better system than most. So countries need to pitch in to the effort if educating it's populace for modern day jobs
  - sheepmullet 10y ago
    Germany is one of the few countries that has kept a manufacturing base and a manufacturing based workforce.

closeparen 10y ago

If you're ever in doubt about tech's sexism problem, revisit one of the HN comment threads where gender roles come up and marvel at the unchecked support for the idea that women should be stay-at-home mothers. Then, for bonus points, check out a divorce thread. Civilization was built on all sorts of identity-based subjugation relationships and as we chip away at them, in the long run, it gets better. If your implicit assumption is true (women only stay in relationships because they require a partner's income to survive) then we have a moral imperative to provide escape hatches from those toxic relationships as quickly as possible.

jules 10y ago
This is what's wrong with politics today. Every question gets moralised. Every opinion gets evaluated on a scale from angel to bigot instead of true to false.
- Infinitesimus 10y ago
  It is a bit problematic that the original comment doesn't seem to consider women as potential provider for a family and the narrative is centered around a male provider.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    True. The study found that women are coping better with deindustrialization than men are. It's just that they're raising children alone.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    Evolution has made men the provider. In the old days (not even that long ago) being pregnant makes a woman vulnerable, while raising children takes time and effort. It made sense for a male to provide for his family while the female was less able to do so. The gender roles are a result of evolution, and womens desire for a man with social and/or economic standing are just as ingrained as a mans desire for visual signs of fertility in a woman.

mvitorino 10y ago

I find it odd that the article manages to completely ignore/miss the effect of welfare and the change in incentives it may result in. Also, it appears that statistically, single mothers are much more likely to vote Left than Right. In the sci-fi movie Advantageous, a future society with a lot more automation, has high unemployment rates. Recruitment (which in the movie is mostly done by AI) eventually evolves to a consensus whereby most jobs are assigned to men because otherwise society would become a lot more dangerous to everyone. EDIT: References: [1] 74% of single mothers voting Democrat [2] one quarter voting Republican [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/single-mothers-give-presidential-politics-a-new-perspective/2013/06/02/b8f85702-cb90-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?utm_term=.dd8a17e22032 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/single-mothers-give-... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/single-mothers-with-family-values.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/single-moth...

Drumlin 10y ago
> Also, it appears that statistically, single mothers are much more likely to vote Left than Right. If you're married to the state, then you vote for more of the state. It's one of the many examples where liberty has been eroded in recent decades, but few talk about it because it's a sensitive topic.
- mvitorino 10y ago
  Absolutely. For a country referred to as "the land of the free" you surely have a lot of "sensitive topics". As soon as I posted my comment, I started getting down-voted. I believe the post was quite factual, not offensive in any way or prejudicial, so I can only imagine it was affecting someone's sensitivity.
  - Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
    Why do you attribute it to welfare instead of the habitual villainization of single mothers by Republicans? I wouldn't vote for someone who disparages my life situation, particularly if it were a difficult one.

jahaja 10y ago

Presenting a rose-tinted view of american history must be HN's national sport.

dang 10y ago
Please don't post generalizations about HN as a rhetorical device. Plenty of differing views on American history get expressed here—unfortunately often leading to flamewars. That's in the nature of inflammatory material, and your comment certainly doesn't help. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795608 and marked it off-topic.
- jahaja 10y ago
  That is not a "differing view". It's a blatantly incorrect view - as indicated by the reply of the account you subsequently banned. But I accept your disapproval of my jibe towards HN.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

andai 10y ago

Well, I guess us guys will just have to start marrying each other!

jomohn 10y ago

At the rate of which women are approaching fields like IT, I think women are equally as screwed. There are not a lot of women that have the heart and commitment to programming or any other field in IT.

phkahler 10y ago

If you read TRP there is really nothing to see in this article at all. It's nothing but confirmation of what we already know. Socio-economic status is what matters to women. It's an evolutionary adaptation that's still in play.

Pharylon 10y ago
Let's not jump to evolutionary psychology to explain the phenomenon. It's also possible that the woman is just making a rational decision for the well-being of her children. A single mother who marries a man with low earnings and no real prospect of ever earning more will mean she's scraping by the rest of her life. If she believes she has a realistic chance of marrying someone who earns more, it's logical to continue to play the field.
- naasking 10y ago
  I don't know what single mothers have to do with any of the discussion here. At best, they're a small subset of the total number of women that would exhibit the described behaviour. Finally, it's pretty sexist to imply that it's justified for the woman to make a rational decision for her children, rather than both parents deserving equal weight in deciding the well-being of their children.
  - Pharylon 10y ago
    The article was about women getting married less, even when they had children. So it has everything to do with the discussion. Also, sure, both parents can make decisions for the well-being of the child, but if you're implying that the woman should marry the man if she doesn't want to because he wants to marry her, then you're the one being sexist. The parent to my original reply is invoking evolution to explain why a woman would or wouldn't want someone as a partner. Those arguments always end up being sexist, attributing women's desires not to rational decision making but to whatever desires the man imagines evolution has instilled into the woman.
    - 10y ago

imgabe 10y ago

It sounds like manufacturing jobs left, so the men have no jobs, but the women still have jobs. Yes? Why won't the men compete for the jobs the women are getting? Alternatively, the men could stay home and take care of the kids while the women work at the jobs they have, providing the stable two-parent household. It seems like a large portion of the problem is tied up in men's idea of what constitutes a "manly" role. I don't mean to trivialize the difficulty of changing one's perspective, but changing diapers has to be a better option than dying from an Oxycontin overdose doesn't it?

smhost 10y ago
It's not just a changing of one's perspective. It's the destruction of your whole identity. It feels incredibly jarring and like you're going insane. It's what people with personality "disorders" have to go through to "fix" themselves to fit society.
ro_sharp 10y ago
Is it just men's idea of a "man's role" that's a problem? The article seems to suggest women's preferences are also in play.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
No matter how much feminism pretends otherwise, women are not keen to form lasting relationships with unemployed men. The reality on the ground is that many women consider extended unemployment a good-enough reason to end a marriage. A cynical but not unrealistic view is that humans tend to display loyalty to performed roles in relationships, not to individuals. If one individual stops performing their assigned role, the relationship ends.
- bigmanwalter 10y ago
  Women who don't date men without a job are like men won't date a woman with a career. There's plenty of sexism on both sides.
  - 10y ago

wingless 10y ago

The traditional gender roles that formed alongside our evolution are broken today: men still crave women's affection, but women no longer need men to provide them. Because of this we were able to abolish traditional marriage, which was the only thing that kept the society sane. Yes, women were oppressed, but not without reason: women are hypergamous by nature. There's a non-negligible population of fully grown virgin men with very little chance of marriage or reproduction. Can you give them a reason to work and be productive? Can you give them a reason to live? Mark my words, we'll hear more and more about lonely men going on shooting sprees or committing suicide (if anyone cares enough to report them).

dang 10y ago
> women were oppressed, but not without reason That's completely unacceptable. We've banned this account. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise never to post anything like this again, or anything close to it. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795585 and marked it off-topic.
- wingless 10y ago
  Why is it unacceptable? No, I will not email you to get my account unbanned. You haven't even explained why I was banned.
- adrienne 10y ago
  It's fascinating to me how you banned this comment, but not the 400 comments above it that make basically the same point without saying these exact words.

cmdrfred 10y ago

8,000 years ago they estimate that 17 women reproduced for every 1 man[0]. In a society without work for most men, I suspect a similar ratio to arise again. Especially if we continue to tell young men to stop behaving like young men in order to attract women. [0]https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d#.f91mx82t4 https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-ev...

mirimir 10y ago
Wow, that is fascinating! I'm guessing polygamy plus slavery.

S4M 10y ago

Out of topic but... > This group includes Olivia Alfano, a 29-year-old single mother living in Evansville, Indiana, where she works as a waitress at Red Lobster. The money is pretty good, she told me: She drives a BMW and was able to buy a house last year. Am I the only one who is surprised by that? (I don't live in the US)

selimthegrim 10y ago
In the comments it was mentioned that she was arrested for involvement in a Haitian cocaine distribution ring out of Miami 7 years ago (as per an FBI press release)
Neliquat 10y ago
In some towns, Red Lobster is a very popular resturant. Its pretty terrible, but is seen as a splurge for the lower class. With the splurge status, tips are often decent compared to other family friendly establishments. Homes are pretty cheap outside the city there. Used bmw's are dirt cheap here, for any doubt see LeMons racing, which is packed with em, at a $500 budget (sans safety gear).
JBiserkov 10y ago
I was rather surprised as well (I don't live in the US either), but the Wikipedia page for the city offers several clues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evansville,_Indiana#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evansville,_Indiana#Economy
scandox 10y ago
I was surprised by this too. Childcare especially is very expensive where I live. It would hardly be worth going to work here. Edit: incoherence
0x445442 10y ago
In addition to the other replies we have this interesting social custom in the U.S. where certain jobs have been arbitrarily recognized as worthy of extra compensation by the paying customers (tipping). So with a number of states raising minimum wage combined with tips and given the right conditions of cost of living, frugal living, and money management I could see it being pulled off.

wink 10y ago

This article confused me a little, I think it's neither here nor there regarding a main point. I mean, I get the basic facts, but I find it oddly jumping around between the men's situation, interjecting manual labor in fields that are dominated by women and then going off in the direction of single parents. Not that I would expect any kind of mentioning possible solutions, but this piece left me scratching my head a little .

sergiotapia 10y ago

"Women cannot go backwards in lifestyle." "She may not leave you the day you lose it, but the countdown has begun." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiZSG2vDMIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiZSG2vDMIo

loydb 10y ago

For a really deep dive (albeit an overly-scholastic one) into this topic, check out _Those Who Work, Those Who Don't: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America_ by Jennifer Sherman. It's a fascinating book (and makes me happy not to have been a logger).

JediPig 10y ago

Has anyone see the she beasts that the feminist community has put out ? If men dont have to provide for wife and 2 kids, he is GOING to have a lot of money left over if he has a job, and working part time or not at all comes an option. The recent mgtow movement is proof that men are sick of it and opting out.

cd_cd 10y ago

This articles is a bit flippant. The study apparently outlines a problem in these regions both socially and economically. The articles then goes on to pick a single case in order to imply that it's actually good news for women - and by inference nothing for us to be concerned about.

RileyKyeden 10y ago

You must not know many single mothers.

cd_cd 10y ago
I know plenty.
betaby 10y ago
On other side tax code, divorce laws are well know to 'penalize' men. Also Eric vs Lola case in Quebec and then federal.
mixedCase 10y ago
You must have issue picking up social cues if you fall for every sob story. The one bad thing about Hacker News is how many sheltered, 1st worlders there are in here that think everyone that isn't happy is an innocent victim of society. I'm tired of seeing women who openly brag about how they "popped someone's child to get their money" through whatever means necessary: "Oops" babies (intentionally missing birth control pills), faking pregnancy to have unprotected sex and even breaking condoms... but when the man leaves: she's a victim, poor her, what a scumbag. This happens every day all the time in the real world. And state policy has to be made upon it, unless it is your desire for it to be abused.
- RileyKyeden 10y ago
  > The one bad thing about Hacker News is how many sheltered, 1st worlders there are in here that think everyone that isn't happy is an innocent victim of society. Love how bizarre this specific line is. Rest assured, I know what the real world is like. It's the same one we all live in, unfortunately, and we all see it through filters. Your filters have led you to prejudge people unlike yourself. Mine lead me to think you're grossly misinformed, arrogant, and not worth talking to further.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    > Rest assured, I know what the real world is like. It's the same one we all live in Thanks for proving my point. Greetings from the privileged poor south american barrio I grew up in. And that wasn't ironic, as my dad was literally born in a mud hut and beat the odds to provide me a comfortable life where I can read in a foreign language how willingly ignorant some people are as to appear virtuous.

kstoneman 10y ago

The article implies that it's solely the woman's decision to marry, but the reality is more complicated. Many men are choosing not to marry since it is fraught with economic risk to do so. This has been building for a generation. > “You don’t want to marry a man who is in all likelihood not economically viable, because it’s not a free lunch,” Autor said. "Not economically viable" is the exact phrase used in the movie "Falling Down" by the man who was denied a loan by a bank and was arrested while the Michael Douglas character looks on sympathetically. His wife ditched him, too.

TheBobinator 10y ago

Polygamy is largely a function of Ego of both men and women. Women seek to acquire capital, status, and for their children to inherit the ego (mostly society's view of that ego) of the alpha male. Men seek to monopolize reproduction, as well as build a society that is secure to them, growing their ego's and power until they monopolize reproduction. Ego reaches it's peek when one believes they are omnipotent and omniscient, and spread that belief to the rest of society. Greek and Roman Gods are very much so an ego trip trying to continue itself. When times are good, we get war and harems. When times are bad, we get the downfall of society due to infighting. Very few individuals are happy with this arrangement, which is why it's been torn down so many times over the millennia. E.G. It's a common saying, the first generation builds the business, 2nd generation runs it, 3rd generation ruins it, and the history of empires tends to follow that trend. There's a reason we replaced Polytheism with monotheism, and that's so no one man could aspire to become a God. There's a reason why priests weren't supposed to marry and have children; clergy were the spiritual leadership of an ego driven society, trying to drive that society in a constructive direction. Monogamy is the practice of making the maximum investment in offspring that is feasible. The closer the union between man and women, the more complete the children will be; if the couple unconditionally loves each other, the child will unconditionally love themselves which comes out as confidence later in life. They also make every investment they can in their children (instead of in a bigger ego; bigger house, luxury car, vacations, and so forth). This in turn forced women to marry men for their physical, moral, emotional, and intellectual traits which was an indication you'd be a good breadwinner but more importantly, that the resulting offspring would be good members of society. What we've had in the last 60 years largely is a psychological war waged on the population in order to further the ego of the corporation or state. Ultimately, this is a self-defeating path; the ego of the corporation and state will ultimately monopolize reproduction but this prevents society from delivering to the state and corps what they need to survive. Ultimately, games of wage arbitrage have resulted in an economic system where the financial markets no longer represent actual production, and where investment in society has dwindled to the point we need to put in place unabated immigration, student loans, H1B's, and Outsourcing in order to continue propping up an already collapsed political system and economy. Democracy was originally invented to control the egos of leadership; Trump being elected is simply the electorate hiring someone who is completely against the ruling class and will tear them down, and this is not the first time this has gone on, although the volume of bitching the ruling elites have done is quite epic. First he's going to do away with the subsidies; H1B's, Immigration, eventually Student loans. Then he's going to begin up large corps while simultaneously restoring the middle class's income who will in turn, form their own tribal governing bodies and lobbying bodies. That in turn will bring the corporations and state in check. Women who chase ego never win, let them, ignore them, go find someone else. They will get what they deserve.

TheBobinator 10y ago

uptime 10y ago

A lot of the lessons here need to be built into the raising of young men. I can't claim to know all the topics we need to master, but hyping up and honoring any domestic labor has to be up there. Keeping a household running well is no joke. If you give any population a limited set of options for self and social worth, you're gonna have a bad time.

caseydurfee 10y ago

Sadly, I feel like a great number of comments in this thread could be summarized as: If a woman prefers a man with wealth or status, she's a gold-digger, and feminism is wrong about women -- they want traditional gender roles. Women are just naturally drawn to wealth and status despite what feminism says they should want. If a woman has sex with a man regardless of his wealth or status, she's a slut. Feminism is wrong about women -- they are naturally attracted to "bad boys", not "Good guys" who are responsible and work hard. "Good guys" are being cheated out of sex by women. If they support feminism despite the fact that women no longer value social/economic status, which reduces their chances to have sex, they are "white knights". If a woman won't have sex with a man, it's because she's a frigid bitch -- feminism has made men irrelevant. Feminism is responsible for suicide bombers and spree killers because they couldn't get sex from women. It's amazing to me how much pseudoscience and entrail-reading comes into discussions of gender. It's so tightly linked to our experience of the world that it's almost impossible not to spin one's own experiences into quasi-rational explanations. For example, this quote from the article: "A substantial number go on to have children with a second partner, or even a third, creating complex and unstable family lives that are not good for children." Says who? Human beings have pretty much always lived in extended clans with "complex family lives". The nuclear family is a pretty recent invention in the history of homo sapiens. The whole article seems to be trying to paint a picture that humans lived in nuclear families from the dawn of time to just a few years ago -- that it is taking children away from the way they are meant to be raised. In fact, this is bringing humans closer to the way they've pretty much always lived, in extended clans with complex family trees, with incredibly complex language for describing those relations. "This creates challenges for the people (usually women) who have to raise a child without the economic or social support of a partner. Their struggles are why the authors see such an uptick in children living in poverty in the aftermath of a decline in manufacturing employment." This is just terrible writing. Women raising children without support of a partner would, by definition, not be affected by the decline in jobs for men. The whole article (and many of the comments here about it) are filled with these kinds of self-refutations and self-fulfilling prophecies. People just start with a conclusion when it comes to gender and work backwards. I'm wary to offer my own opinions on these issues, because they might be just as full of confirmation bias, question begging, and social proof-seeking. Maybe human beings are just really bad at discussing this topic.

am_i_down 10y ago

My dog doesn't care that my factory job vanished.

Austin_Steven17 10y ago

Hello, Are you looking for financial freedom? are you in Debt, you need a loan to start a new business? or you collapse financially, you need a loan buying a car or a house? Have your bank in ever Finance refuse? You want to improve your financial? they need a loan your bills are paying off? not looking more, we welcome you for an opportunity to all types of loans get at a very affordable interest rates of 3% for other For information, contact us now by e-mail to:(jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com) Do you need a business loan? Do you need a personal loan? Do you want to buy a car? Do you want to refinance? Do you need a mortgage loan? Do you need a huge capital to start off your business proposal or expansion? Have you lost hope and you think there is no way out, and your financial burdens still persists? Company Name: JAYSON LOAN FIRM Company Email jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com Company NMLS ID: 315276 Please do not hesitate to contact us for possible business co-operation Contact us via email: (Jaysonloanfirm@gmail.com) or call +1-440-853-7705 Best Regards, Patrick Morgan.

Austin_Steven17 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

usmeteora 10y ago

As a female engineer perpetually in male dominated environments whether at work or at a bar being served mostly by male bartenders who I have come to build a repore with. It ends up being a casual mutually beneficial way to exchange banter and discuss social life but get perspectives and experiences from people who lead very different lives, and here is what I find. I find that most lower middle class men struggling to find jobs who have a complaint about this DO NOT have an issue finding women. They have an issue with women who do not financially contribute, and trap them into paying child support for a kid they never planned on having, and women who feel entitled to men being the sole provider, stripping away their freedom, and them men are trying to get away from women and commitments, not towards them. They are looking to travel and have experiences and do things they enjoy instead of repeating the failures they saw their parents go through. Theyve seen their parents fight over money, their dads lose jobs, their parents get divorced and I don't know who is asking for that life back but I think its the older men who lost everything because I don't know any noneducated man my age that actually wants that, they are running away from it at all costs. I not only find this with lower middle class men but men I work with as well. They are getting sick and tired of being manipulated by women and trapped into families they never planned to or agreed to and being expected to do all the work financially for the rest of their lives... I find in male dominated environments with men of higher socioeconomic status, that they end up dating financially needy women who are incentivized to lock them into a long term financial relationship because theres not enough economically independent women to date. Additionally, I find women like me tend to be much more attractive to them for the reason that working women doing well and climbing the socioeconomic ladder by ourselves are attractive because we have ambition, which in their socioeconomic stratus is not something they are conditioned to, so not only is it attractive because you have more in common to talk to someone about, but its also from their point of view rather exotic and rare, and thus instantly more desireable. While a comment below stating chinese stats is generally worriesome, in America, the issue is not that lower income men can't get women, its that they cant get the women that they want. While most of the comments talk about how these women need to be more openminded, I find myself as a socioeconomic 26yr old woman progressing in my technical career in engineering and software development, I find that there is not nearly enough women, and that we need many more. IF this happens (and that happening whether its happening and causes behind it happening or not is a WHOLE different discussion) over time then the standards men have for women will raise. While these men are pining after women who in reality don't exist in great numbers, just highly highlighted, the other 95% of women are incentivized to compete on a personal and economic level if they find men on their level and above their socioeconomic level are choosing women who make their own money, and they will begin to understand they are the only ones providing for themselves and over time women will seep into previously considered male dominated environments and take on more management and leadership roles. Over the long run, this will hopefully allow men and women to engage in short or long term relationships or whatever they choose as we all become more accepting and openminded based on the person and less on the economic benefits they can provide. Progress is painful, and as one of the few women pioneering in it, I get pressure form men i work with to date and marry, men who serve me drinks to date and marry, and I get hate and drama from all the girls who are mad at me for making more money than them (who have no problem dating men with money but lots of problems with women making money, and can't seem to solve that issue in their head) In general, its not as glamorous as it seems if you are actually a full time, preference for low drama female with your career as your first priority. Women like us are highlighted as the pain point of the issue, but we are not the cause of it, and over time hopefully the solution. The other complaint I have about this whole argument is if women are getting a higher socioeconomic status while men complain they don't have jobs, then there are clearly jobs, they are just stereotypically female jobs, so instead of men complaining that the universe isnt entitling and providing them to the (in the grand scheme of things incredibly fleeting and nonpermanent manufactoring jobs) they should be more open to becoming nurses, teachers, government jobs and other jobs that are clearly in a great shortage for that women are not only working full time side jobs while taking night classes to become nurses and etc but raising kids while doing it often times as a single parent. If they can do it men can do it, they just don't want to because its an uncomfortable stereotype to break, but in WWII many women stepped into manufactoring jobs to fill the void in America, so men need to do the same thing. For now its a bit of an awkward phase for men because they are used to being the ones that get to choose and women have always been very willing to compete in looks and otherwise to get access to that financial stability as it was the only socially acceptable way to do so for so long without permanently striating yourself into a considered deplorable condition. Men need to realize over time women becoming more independent is a good thing for everyone. Gorwing pains will always exist in society, its how we adapt to them that makes both men and women successful and competitive candidates in the working field and in the personal relationship realm. This ongoing complaint I keep hearing about men wanting to fall back into manufactoring jobs and women getting jobs is a more a complaint about how they wish things would never change and how they want people to accomodate them instead of steering the dicsussion to how to adapt to reality.