4 ms·

There’s a lot of incorrect assumptions packed into one sentence, but one point in particular stands out: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely f

There’s a lot of incorrect assumptions packed into one sentence, but one point in particular stands out: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success This doesn't align with observable trends: Consider the sustained growth in MMA’s popularity or the emergence of figures like Andrew Tate as clear counterexamples.

anonym29 1y ago
Your counterexamples aren't mutually exclusive with a long-term shift in either mean or median male appearance expression overall.
- BoxFour 1y ago
  What was said: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success (career, wealth, sporting excellence, etc) That doesn’t reflect reality. Those fields (wealth, competitive sport) aren’t in decline among young men. Interest in them has grown considerably compared to previous generations, as evidenced by those counterexamples.
  - anonym29 1y ago
    I understand that wealth and income are not the same, but unmarried women under 30 in major metro areas have been outearning their male counterparts since at least 2014 - over a decade now. Necessarily, this means income competitiveness must be declining among unmarried young men in major metro areas, which is a noteworthy chunk.
    - BoxFour 1y ago
      Ignore comparing to women for a second: The OP suggested that men were focused on their appearance at the cost of traditional “male focuses” like wealth. Is your argument that men stopped focusing on their income because they started focusing on their physical appearance more? Why that and not the plethora of other reasons that women might earn more than men now, almost none of which have to do with men focusing on their appearance at the cost of wealth-building?
      - anonym29 1y ago
        You made a claim later in the exchange, which is what I am responding to. Your claim - "Those fields (wealth, competitive sport) aren’t in decline among young men.". Men's proportional share of income is in decline, and while wealth and income aren't the same, income is necessary for most people to build wealth. When men's proportional income is in decline, it logically follows that men's proportional wealth will also be in decline.
        BoxFour 1y ago
        No, I claimed that interest in them isn’t declining in young men. You’re not proving interest in them has. You’re engaging in outcomes-based thinking, which is entirely irrelevant to this argument about inputs. The argument is that men lost focus on wealth because they gained focused on physical appearance instead. Your fact about proportional wealth outcomes proves neither part in that argument.
        anonym29 1y ago
        My quote was copied and pasted directly from your message. Again, the actual decline in proportional male income and wealth isn't mutually exclusive with male interest in income and wealth rising. If anything, the realized decline is a perfectly logical explanation for the increase in interest. It seems you may have made a few statements that, by themselves, are strictly speaking, inaccurate, but were intended to paint a picture of your broader argument that I don't necessarily disagree with - I just wanted to point out that many young men are in fact falling behind on income and wealth accumulation, contradictory to a statement you'd made.
beeflet 1y ago
I think those are reactions to a larger trend in the reverse direction
- BoxFour 1y ago
  Which brings us back to the original issue: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success (career, wealth, sporting excellence, etc) That assertion doesn’t hold up. Even if it described a previous generation, it doesn’t reflect what’s happening now.

anonym29 1y ago

Your counterexamples aren't mutually exclusive with a long-term shift in either mean or median male appearance expression overall.

BoxFour 1y ago
What was said: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success (career, wealth, sporting excellence, etc) That doesn’t reflect reality. Those fields (wealth, competitive sport) aren’t in decline among young men. Interest in them has grown considerably compared to previous generations, as evidenced by those counterexamples.
- anonym29 1y ago
  I understand that wealth and income are not the same, but unmarried women under 30 in major metro areas have been outearning their male counterparts since at least 2014 - over a decade now. Necessarily, this means income competitiveness must be declining among unmarried young men in major metro areas, which is a noteworthy chunk.
  - BoxFour 1y ago
    Ignore comparing to women for a second: The OP suggested that men were focused on their appearance at the cost of traditional “male focuses” like wealth. Is your argument that men stopped focusing on their income because they started focusing on their physical appearance more? Why that and not the plethora of other reasons that women might earn more than men now, almost none of which have to do with men focusing on their appearance at the cost of wealth-building?
    - anonym29 1y ago
      You made a claim later in the exchange, which is what I am responding to. Your claim - "Those fields (wealth, competitive sport) aren’t in decline among young men.". Men's proportional share of income is in decline, and while wealth and income aren't the same, income is necessary for most people to build wealth. When men's proportional income is in decline, it logically follows that men's proportional wealth will also be in decline.
      - BoxFour 1y ago
        No, I claimed that interest in them isn’t declining in young men. You’re not proving interest in them has. You’re engaging in outcomes-based thinking, which is entirely irrelevant to this argument about inputs. The argument is that men lost focus on wealth because they gained focused on physical appearance instead. Your fact about proportional wealth outcomes proves neither part in that argument.
        anonym29 1y ago
        My quote was copied and pasted directly from your message. Again, the actual decline in proportional male income and wealth isn't mutually exclusive with male interest in income and wealth rising. If anything, the realized decline is a perfectly logical explanation for the increase in interest. It seems you may have made a few statements that, by themselves, are strictly speaking, inaccurate, but were intended to paint a picture of your broader argument that I don't necessarily disagree with - I just wanted to point out that many young men are in fact falling behind on income and wealth accumulation, contradictory to a statement you'd made.

beeflet 1y ago

I think those are reactions to a larger trend in the reverse direction

BoxFour 1y ago
Which brings us back to the original issue: > we are seeing a lot of young men optimising purely for physical attractiveness at the cost of success in fields we might traditionally identify with male success (career, wealth, sporting excellence, etc) That assertion doesn’t hold up. Even if it described a previous generation, it doesn’t reflect what’s happening now.