4 ms·

> Although more unmarried men could stir up political trouble I always find something a little dark about this argument against letting men be single, and agai

> Although more unmarried men could stir up political trouble I always find something a little dark about this argument against letting men be single, and against practices like polygamy with some men having multiple wives and others not having wives. There's a kind of 'or else...' vibe to it. As if some people think it's women's job to marry men to stop them being a menace to society.

jollyllama 4y ago
It reduces men's families to hostages; it implies married men don't make trouble because they're afraid of what will be done to their families.
- AustinDev 4y ago
  The US military takes this sort of thing into consideration for security clearances. You’re much less likely to sell state secrets if you have a family at home.
  - polishdude20 4y ago
    In a way even thinking about this when it comes to world leaders I would much rather all world leaders have rich family lives so that they can think about their families before they do anything stupid.
  - iwillbenice 4y ago
- if_by_whisky 4y ago
  I think it's more about what the opportunity cost is to their families.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
I don't like it either - but if history has taught us anything, angry young men are a common source of social revolution. Often because they have nothing to lose - and if they hate the system holding them down, tearing it down is fun revenge. I'm at the point where I don't like it, but it is probably true regardless.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  But is this actually bad? I'm not that familliar with situation in india, but in "the west", we've come to situations where young people (with a very wide definition of "young") are unable to afford homes (and in turn, kids), are underpaid, and in some of those countries (mostly usa) cannot even afford education and healthcare (in contrast to eg. europe, where education is taxpayer paid but healthcare is slowly going down lower and lower). Maybe it is the time to say "stop", we want homes, better pay (and all the other stuff), and such major changes only come with enough people who are fed up and have nothing else to lose... so yes, young, childless, unmarried men. I know most revolutions end badly, but find me a developed "western" place with affordable housing?
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    In my own personal opinion, entertainment, cohabitation (comparatively easy, low-risk, few obligations sex compared to historically), and alcohol/drugs are the only things keeping young men from getting violent. If it were not for these things, I believe that we would be much closer to revolution even if nobody can see it yet. Potentially Tzarist Russia or Weimar Germany close. I think young men have all the social indicators needed to cause them to broadly revolt; we just have some placating methods that didn't exist historically.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      The problem I see is, that those people are not the "80s movies bachelors" (with enough money, flashy clothes, nice houses and cars.. and well, drugs and sex), but people literally living on the edge of their financial capabilites, sharing 3 bedroom apartments with 5 more people, barely able to afford the rent and bills, and pretty much everything left over is going for entertainment (drug and sex). With the coming financial crisis (caused again by dick-measuring politicians) a rise in eg power and heat bills with already overinflated rents and layoffs will cause more and more people to basically "not-lose-anything" if they actually get violent. Sadly, the governments solve this by taxing the "rich" (=middle class, because the actual rich always avoid the taxes, and engineers, coders, tradesmen etc. are the one who get fucked), bringing everyone (except the actual rich) to some low minimum needed to survive while still being fucked in every other sense. So yeah... the only way this can be solved is (in my, controversial opinion), is for people to actually get angry and replace the whole set of politicians and people in bed with them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
luckylion 4y ago
> As if some people think it's women's job to marry men to stop them being a menace to society. The same argument is made for wealth transfers via taxes: pay up, or they might just take it, and it's cheaper and more efficient to codify wealth transfer instead of just letting it happen. And you don't necessarily need men to get married to not be trouble makers. But you'll need them to have something to do. If that's not marriage, education or work, you better have entertainment or drugs available.
jonahx 4y ago
> There's a kind of 'or else...' vibe to it. As if some people think it's women's job to marry men to stop them being a menace to society. I don't think anyone studying this seriously is making that argument or even trying to slyly imply it. I think it breaks down like this: We know "lots of single men" correlates with many indicators that are, broadly, "bad for society". What is driving this change? What can we about it? The "what can we do about it?" is focused, again broadly, on "fixing men" or "fixing the incentives for men" or "fixing the opportunities for men." No one is proposing, "Hey women, you better start marrying these unattractive layabouts or else society will collapse and you'll be living in dystopia...".
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  I'm sure I've read it in reputable newspapers presented as an argument for keeping consenting polygamous relationships illegal - 'all the high status men will get multiple wives and low status men won't have wives and will be troublemakers'.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    You can actually look into statistics and see this is true. The 20 most violent African countries, for example, almost all have widespread polygamy.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Yeah I know it's true not questioning the fact... but is it women's job to solve it by marrying people they won't want to marry? Why should they do that to solve society's problems?
      - twoifbyseat 4y ago
        No. They don't really bear the brunt of the violence anyway, so why should they care?
        deleted 4y ago
safety1st 4y ago
I mean, there's academic work on this subject that's almost 30 years old: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/young-men-and-war-could-we-have-predicted-the-distribution-violent-conflicts-the-end-the https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/young-men-and-war-could-w... If you're aware of this work and you think it's flawed, why don't you elaborate? That could be a great discussion. If you're accusing Wiener and Mesquida of being sexist, or if you think research on this subject should be suppressed, you should come out and say that. What's your contribution exactly other than strawmanning "some people" as bigots?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Lol you're using a lot of incendiary words I didn't use there and then asking if I'm straw manning?
  - safety1st 4y ago
    > As if some people think it's women's job to marry men to stop them being a menace to society. Why don't you elaborate on exactly who you were libeling here?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Nobody. You made up all those things you asked if I believed, out of thin air, for some bizarre reason. "If you're... If you're..." is a red flag for an argument. If you're not clear I was making an argument yourself... maybe it's because I didn't make it?
      - P_I_Staker 4y ago
        Maybe you should calm down. OP is asking some fair and interesting questions. There's no need to be this defensive.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        I can't debate them to defend an opinion I don't hold and never presented! The answer to all their questions is basically 'I never said that in the first place.' How's that going to lead to an interesting discussion?
ImprobableTruth 4y ago
Is the argument that poverty causes crime 'dark'?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  It's not the identification of the cause - it's the action taken based on it 'and therefore we will enact this law' - for example laws forbidding consenting people to marry if one of them already has a marriage.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jmeister 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jollyllama 4y ago

It reduces men's families to hostages; it implies married men don't make trouble because they're afraid of what will be done to their families.

AustinDev 4y ago
The US military takes this sort of thing into consideration for security clearances. You’re much less likely to sell state secrets if you have a family at home.
- polishdude20 4y ago
  In a way even thinking about this when it comes to world leaders I would much rather all world leaders have rich family lives so that they can think about their families before they do anything stupid.
- iwillbenice 4y ago
if_by_whisky 4y ago
I think it's more about what the opportunity cost is to their families.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

I don't like it either - but if history has taught us anything, angry young men are a common source of social revolution. Often because they have nothing to lose - and if they hate the system holding them down, tearing it down is fun revenge. I'm at the point where I don't like it, but it is probably true regardless.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
But is this actually bad? I'm not that familliar with situation in india, but in "the west", we've come to situations where young people (with a very wide definition of "young") are unable to afford homes (and in turn, kids), are underpaid, and in some of those countries (mostly usa) cannot even afford education and healthcare (in contrast to eg. europe, where education is taxpayer paid but healthcare is slowly going down lower and lower). Maybe it is the time to say "stop", we want homes, better pay (and all the other stuff), and such major changes only come with enough people who are fed up and have nothing else to lose... so yes, young, childless, unmarried men. I know most revolutions end badly, but find me a developed "western" place with affordable housing?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  In my own personal opinion, entertainment, cohabitation (comparatively easy, low-risk, few obligations sex compared to historically), and alcohol/drugs are the only things keeping young men from getting violent. If it were not for these things, I believe that we would be much closer to revolution even if nobody can see it yet. Potentially Tzarist Russia or Weimar Germany close. I think young men have all the social indicators needed to cause them to broadly revolt; we just have some placating methods that didn't exist historically.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    The problem I see is, that those people are not the "80s movies bachelors" (with enough money, flashy clothes, nice houses and cars.. and well, drugs and sex), but people literally living on the edge of their financial capabilites, sharing 3 bedroom apartments with 5 more people, barely able to afford the rent and bills, and pretty much everything left over is going for entertainment (drug and sex). With the coming financial crisis (caused again by dick-measuring politicians) a rise in eg power and heat bills with already overinflated rents and layoffs will cause more and more people to basically "not-lose-anything" if they actually get violent. Sadly, the governments solve this by taxing the "rich" (=middle class, because the actual rich always avoid the taxes, and engineers, coders, tradesmen etc. are the one who get fucked), bringing everyone (except the actual rich) to some low minimum needed to survive while still being fucked in every other sense. So yeah... the only way this can be solved is (in my, controversial opinion), is for people to actually get angry and replace the whole set of politicians and people in bed with them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

luckylion 4y ago

> As if some people think it's women's job to marry men to stop them being a menace to society. The same argument is made for wealth transfers via taxes: pay up, or they might just take it, and it's cheaper and more efficient to codify wealth transfer instead of just letting it happen. And you don't necessarily need men to get married to not be trouble makers. But you'll need them to have something to do. If that's not marriage, education or work, you better have entertainment or drugs available.

jonahx 4y ago

> There's a kind of 'or else...' vibe to it. As if some people think it's women's job to marry men to stop them being a menace to society. I don't think anyone studying this seriously is making that argument or even trying to slyly imply it. I think it breaks down like this: We know "lots of single men" correlates with many indicators that are, broadly, "bad for society". What is driving this change? What can we about it? The "what can we do about it?" is focused, again broadly, on "fixing men" or "fixing the incentives for men" or "fixing the opportunities for men." No one is proposing, "Hey women, you better start marrying these unattractive layabouts or else society will collapse and you'll be living in dystopia...".

chrisseaton 4y ago
I'm sure I've read it in reputable newspapers presented as an argument for keeping consenting polygamous relationships illegal - 'all the high status men will get multiple wives and low status men won't have wives and will be troublemakers'.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  You can actually look into statistics and see this is true. The 20 most violent African countries, for example, almost all have widespread polygamy.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Yeah I know it's true not questioning the fact... but is it women's job to solve it by marrying people they won't want to marry? Why should they do that to solve society's problems?
    - twoifbyseat 4y ago
      No. They don't really bear the brunt of the violence anyway, so why should they care?
      - deleted 4y ago

safety1st 4y ago

I mean, there's academic work on this subject that's almost 30 years old: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/young-men-and-war-could-we-have-predicted-the-distribution-violent-conflicts-the-end-the https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/young-men-and-war-could-w... If you're aware of this work and you think it's flawed, why don't you elaborate? That could be a great discussion. If you're accusing Wiener and Mesquida of being sexist, or if you think research on this subject should be suppressed, you should come out and say that. What's your contribution exactly other than strawmanning "some people" as bigots?

chrisseaton 4y ago
Lol you're using a lot of incendiary words I didn't use there and then asking if I'm straw manning?
- safety1st 4y ago
  > As if some people think it's women's job to marry men to stop them being a menace to society. Why don't you elaborate on exactly who you were libeling here?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Nobody. You made up all those things you asked if I believed, out of thin air, for some bizarre reason. "If you're... If you're..." is a red flag for an argument. If you're not clear I was making an argument yourself... maybe it's because I didn't make it?
    - P_I_Staker 4y ago
      Maybe you should calm down. OP is asking some fair and interesting questions. There's no need to be this defensive.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        I can't debate them to defend an opinion I don't hold and never presented! The answer to all their questions is basically 'I never said that in the first place.' How's that going to lead to an interesting discussion?

ImprobableTruth 4y ago

Is the argument that poverty causes crime 'dark'?

chrisseaton 4y ago
It's not the identification of the cause - it's the action taken based on it 'and therefore we will enact this law' - for example laws forbidding consenting people to marry if one of them already has a marriage.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jmeister 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]