Thats fucking depressing.
Consequently twice as likely not to have a wife 🤣 fuck you. I’m not obeying anyone, ever, under any circumstance.
They’re too young to have been married, where their wife will disabuse them of this concept very quickly.
Thanks “social” media
People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.
How do you act surprised with this is beyond me.
people don’t understand that other cultures exist
Well, if they won’t become American, we have to kill them all. -MAGA
This is bait the guardian has been really shitty. I might just block them like fox news
The survey the article is based on is not of good quality (I’m being polite)… People without a proper degree in statistics should not be allowed to get anywhere near numbers… Here the [link] of the PDF: (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/assets/news/iwd-2026-global-charts-final.pdf)
Even with those numbers, it’s still frustrating.
You can see in the data that the country dominates attitude. Using only the global averages against the generational buckets isn’t very useful. I want to see the generational breakdown BY COUNTRY.
yes, but the global trend across countries is clear. economic stagnation, lower mobility, a lack of resources and opportunities available.
So people look back to the past and have nostalgia for it for the mid 20th century when those things were abundant, and along with it they look back at strict gender roles and the idea that men should work and women should be home makers.
It’s a fact that in societies with high wealth disparities and a lack of mobility gender and social roles tend to be more rigid, whereas in societies with more equality they are more flexible. Which is largely a product of people seeking economic security first and foremost, and gender freedom only after they have it.
It’s a fact that in societies with high wealth disparities and a lack of mobility gender and social roles tend to be more rigid, whereas in societies with more equality they are more flexible. Which is largely a product of people seeking economic security first and foremost, and gender freedom only after they have it.
You have any good sources on this? Not being cynical, just genuinely interested.
“People without a proper degree in statistics should not be allowed to get anywhere near numbers” is my new favorite phrase. Thank you for the QC!
I’m getting my doctorate in engineering statistics and I still would never go near numbers.
Wise 🙏
yeah I always assume articles that say X group is like Y thing is usually full of trump. these definately have to be taken with a grain of salt. Also boomers were the hippie generation. Theoretically they should be much larger on general equality.
Looks like they’ve pulled the file. Good.
deleted by creator
If you think one gender needs to be subservient to another you’re either an evil person, a stupid person, or both.
Republican?
They’re both evil and stupid.
I am slowly discarding my differentiations between stupid and evil, there’s a different, mysterious third thing that combines both but exists on its own. And whatever this thing is, it’s raging through our population like fire through dry brush.
At some point I’m not going to care if the punch you’re swinging at me is from ignorance or not. I’m still getting hit and I’d be stupid not to defend myself.
I am slowly discarding my differentiations between stupid and evil, there’s a different, mysterious third thing that combines both but exists on its own.
Willful Ignorance. Choosing to remain stupid despite access to information.
Got me remembering Badiou’s Ethics and how part of evil involves “fidelity to the lie” and actively denying the shared truth of reality.
Yah it’s something like that, the WWE/kayfabe thing but spreading through reality broadly, where one chooses to believe something they know isn’t true, and thus it becomes true to them. Abandoning of accountability for one’s own beliefs and embracing whatever corresponds to whatever feels most validating or satisfying. I lost a family member to this in the form of conspiracism and delusion, instead of getting help for voices and visions, they found a community to support them and started making money from people seeking meaning and truth (the truth they want to hear that is) and as a result just tripled down on every crazy idea and was eventually arrested for taking a weapon to a school and was eventually released and went right back to their supportive community online.
I think the AI/atomized internet is going to either destroy us all, or it will force some people to actually reconcile their weaknesses as a cognitive being and how limited and vulnerable our minds really are in order to create safeguards against the most devious mental traps imaginable.
HyperNormalisation is a 2016 BBC documentary by British filmmaker Adam Curtis. It argues that following the global economic crises of the 1970s, governments, financiers and technological utopians gave up on trying to shape the complex “real world” and instead established a simpler “fake world” for the benefit of multi-national corporations that is kept stable by neoliberal governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation
https://youtube.com/shorts/gs1-ebayUIs
Some links you may find interesting. It took me a few sittings to finish it because there’s so much information to process but I highly recommend watching that documentary.
I’ve heard some of this before but I’ll dive in deeper and make myself even more depressed for the sake of understanding.
https://bonpote.com/en/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/
Law 1: Everyone always and inevitably underestimates the number of stupid people in circulation
Law 2: The probability that a person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or group of people when he or she does not benefit and may even suffer losses.
Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the destructive power of stupid individuals.
Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
I feel like it’s worth noting that anyone, including you, can be a stupid person, and acknowledging that fact does not exempt you from potentially being a stupid person
Yes that’s what rule 2 is for.
Just think it could stand to be more explicit. Some people, being stupid, wouldn’t be able to figure out that they may themselves be stupid based only on those laws
I am saving this, it’s very well said.
For real, I thought I knew this, I thought I was aware of the problem, then when covid hit I had an actual mental breakdown realizing just how bad it actually is, how the number of people who have cognitive thoughts is actually a slim, slim margin of the population and how “stuck” we are as a species. Most people with a few brain cells have no idea how bad it really is, and the rest are too stupid to care.
What’s worse is we’ve taken ourselves out of selective processes for improvement. We will never, ever get smarter or fix this because it offers our species no advantages to do so.
We will never have the stars. I mourned that fact.
TIL of the godfather of the quadrant meme, is that the name?
Nolan Chart.
Not to be confused with Gartner Chart.
What if I estimate the number of stupid people in circulation to 10 trillion?
Then you really know your people.
OOOOF. This is a gooder. Cuz like, technically being terrible at math is an independent characteristic, meaning that I can’t categorize you as stupid, thus adhering to the 4th law.
Congratulations. You solved stupidity.
It’s a combination of both. Stupid people stuck in echo chambers being brainwashed and manipulate by the evil people.
it’s called having a belief.
Did you mean faith? People believe lots of stuff for good reasons.
no. just belief. people believe in all sort of arbitrary nonsense.
i dated a woman who thought eating breakfast was only for children, for example. she basically told me i was a man-child for wanting to eat food before noon. you could not argue with her and she could not accept that people eat breakfast. she thought eating breakfast as a man made me weak and pathetic and she told me i had to stop eating breakfast if i wanted to keep seeing her.
no idea why she believed this, but to her you can’t be ‘adult’ if you eat food before noon. probably how she was raised and she never questioned it her entire life. she was 37.
I’ve also had people tell me that I organize ‘wrong’. and a million other arbitrary things they were adamant were the ‘only way’ you could do something or eat something or whatever. the most common one is that I’m must be gay because I have a cat. a ‘real straight man’ can’t own a cat.
Do you believe this to be true?
believe what? that i’m gay because I have a cat?
No. But lots of other people believe that.
No, that people believe in all sorts of arbitrary nonsense.
Most of those people tend to believe such things because of their religion… Which they think is good, wise or both.
So then they fall under the “stupid” category if they actually believe and live their lives according to unprovable mythology and “evil” if they don’t actually believe and just use the religion as an excuse to oppress others.
even if that person is a woman who thinks it’s natural/normal to be subservient to a dominate man, and calls herself a feminist/progressive/liberal/independent woman?
that opinion involves other women. they can make what ever choices about themselves but the belief that others are to be subservient is evil.
so it’s evil only if she preaches it as a lifestyle?
and the latent belief that others should be subservient.
That woman thinks wrong and should think the way that I, a man, say she should.
People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.
So I question how much of this actually takes into account massive cultural differences and how that can skew the results since this is apparently a global survey.
People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.
As a Malaysian, i’ll let you guess the reason.
It’s a country full of manosphere fans. Also religion.
We Asian are generally patriarchy and misogyny is rather common, but religion supercharge it to extreme level. You can tune in to popular malay radio station and they will bring on woman preacher that basically say woman should obey husband and do their role, and the woman host will agree to them. Self oppression is really common because they were taught that since as a kid. We’re that deep.
Informal, but in brazil we made a poll among our class mates and 10 in 40 students thought “women should be submissive tp their husbands” and “disagreed with homosexuality”.
And its precisely the most religious people in the classroom… The new wave of for profit protestant churches in brazil and america is crazy.
Many of the patterns in the US are imitated elsewhere. Probably something to do with all of those “mission trips” churches take to “help the disadvantaged” (well, I assume that they actually help, but I’d be amazed if they weren’t trying to spread their religious beliefs everywhere they go". Or, perhaps, they see the Billy Grahams and the Kenneth Copelands making a fuck ton of money, and they also want a fuck ton of money. Probably all of the above.
Or, perhaps, the US isn’t the center of the world and other countries aren’t “imitating patterns”, this is just also happening there for mostly the same reasons.
It isn’t the center of the world, I agree. However, pentecostalism and televangelism, especially televangelism, originate in America, and are mostly American practices. Evangelical churches like sending missions to “help poor people” in “third world countries”, which involves quite a bit of preaching. It isn’t a stretch to assume that the televangelists in Brazil were strongly influenced by the religious movements of the US. In fact, the Brazilian user I was replying to SPECIFICALLY mentioned the US. The United States is not the center of the world, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum either.
Allah and his only prophet Mohammed?
You know Jesus is a prophet to Muslims right?
The confusion is language.
In the Quran, he’s called Isa and is mentioned over 30 times.
Same way Allah refers to the same God Judaism calls Yahweh and Christians aren’t supposed to say aloud because they treat God like Voldemort.
I think it’s Jews who can’t say Yahweh. Christians certainly can.
…
Judaism = Yahweh
Islam = Allah
Christianity = “Do not say my name, just say God”
That’s literally the whole “do not say God’s name on vain” thing.
Idiots that couldn’t read the Bible centuries later just thought “God” was what you shouldn’t say, be cause they scrubbed God’s name in the original language from the Bible and Christianity to make it more believable he was the only God and not one of many
What’s the evidence of the name being scrubbed? Is it just that the Jews still use Yahweh and Christians don’t usually? I’m curious and would like to have backing if I repeat that at some point.
Yahweh is used to describe God like 7,000 times in the Old testament (written before Christianity by Jews) and used 0 times in the New Testament written by Christians.
Depending bible, all the Yahweh’s may be replaced by the all caps “LORD” because they literally went back and scrubbed the name out to obey “don’t use my name in vain”.
Not sure how good of a source this is but I mean you can literally compare the Old Testament to the Torah and see that it changed:
In actuality, God’s personal name is in your Bible . . . sort of. The editors have chosen not to transliterate God’s name, like they do every other proper name in the Bible, and have instead chosen to replace God’s name, Yahweh, with the upper-case LORD or GOD. That’s right, all 6,828 times God’s personal name Yahweh is written in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament have been replaced with the English LORD or GOD in your English Bible. Let’s look at Psalm 117 as an example.
“Praise the LORD, all nations! Extol him, all peoples! For great is his steadfast love toward us, and the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever. Praise the LORD!”
PSALM 117
The word “LORD” in all upper-case letters is God’s personal name, Yahweh. God’s personal name is used three times in Psalm 117. So, in a way, God’s personal name is in all modern English Bibles; the translators and editors have simply chosen not to transliterate it, but to use the word LORD or GOD instead. Most Bibles explicitly state what they are doing in the preface, but let’s be honest, most people do not read the preface to their Bible.
https://biblicalculture.com/why-is-gods-name-not-in-the-bible/
To be clear I don’t believe any of this stuff, it’s just always bugged me that the biggest modern religious conflict is three groups all praying to the same God they all swear is peaceful, and just constantly killing Innocents over minor details without even realizing it.
So I’ve looked into how they different they really are. And most of the conflict is semantics that no one fighting over actually understands.
The god’s name in vain thing has nothing to do with not saying God’s name. It also doesn’t really mean saying things like “god damn it.” It’s meant to be about not using God as a justification or excuse to do something you want. Throughout history it’s probably the least followed commandment, except for maybe throw shalt not kill.
I’m a Christian, and I assure you that this is nonsense. I distinctly remember the name Yahweh being used in sermons. Maybe there are branches of Christianity where that’s a thing, but it’s definitely not universal.
“Using God’s name in vain” is generally taken to be about blasphemous cursing, not about using God’s name at all.
“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave unpunished the one who takes His name in vain.”
Name…
Your God…
His name…
The Shahada explicitly mentions that Mohammed is the ‘final’ messenger of God. Also called "Khatam an-Nabiyyin,” usually translated as “Seal of the Prophets.” That phrase comes from the Quran (33:40.) Muslims interpret it to mean he is the last prophet in a long line of prophets.
Muslims often consider what Mohammed said to be the end of the conversation, contrary to numerous prophets that came before him.
So if there’s ‘one’ prophet to ‘go to’, under Islam, Mohammed is the alpha prophet.
Some Muslims don’t even believe Jesus was crucified. Some think there was a substitution.
The abrahamic religions are so dynamic yet the ego(d)centricity remains. You move from a dumb God that gets fooled by Satan chapter after chapter. Getting God to torture his most devout worshippers. Fun.
Then you get Jesus! Praise Jesus! Love each other. The hippy socialist. Flipping tables and feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting prisoners, and he even raised the dead occasionally. Truly God in the flesh.
Then you get Allah. A transcendental god. A thing that’s best described not by what it is, but by what it is not.
Then how they go from no after life, aka sheol. To heaven and hell (many mansions, weeping gnashing of teeth). Then you get paradise with 72 virgins, so kind of like Mormonism. Oh wait? You don’t get your own planet and godhood itself? SMH. noob.
Serious.
How exactly does that work? I’m pretty ignorant of most religions.
I know the Koran came after the Bible and that Moses and Jesus are considered holy. Is Muhammed the ultimate prophet? Can other prophets come later and add to the Koran?
And the (Christian) Bible came after the Talmud, which came after the Tamakh, which came after the Torah, and so on and so on…
Most religions borrow heavily from the ones that came before. Noah’s flood echoes the story of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Islam actually takes an interesting approach to other religious figures. They don’t necessarily deny them, they more absorb them. If someone was truly holy, the must have been a prophet. In the Quran, many figures from the Jewish and Christian bibles are called out as prophets.
It’s more of an academic point than anything that has actual effect on day to day religious activity.
Not true at all. I mean sure Muslims don’t pray to Jesus, but they don’t pray to Muhammad either. And when reading the Quran, Jesus is mentioned more than Muhammad’s by name. Mary mother of Jesus is mentioned even more.
Fun fact, Muslims unlike Evangelicals believe Mary was indeed a virgin.
But to understand how important Jesus is to Muslims, just know that when the apocalypse happens in the Quran, it’s Jesus that returns not Muhammad.
None of that changes what I said. He’s not really part of the core of the religion. It’s just like with Judaism and Christianity. The Torah is a big part of the Christian Bible, but the focus and context are vastly different.
Not a good example at all.
The Old Testament is vital to Christianity first of all.
And to Muslims, Muhammad was clarifying the message of Jesus because it had been obscured by centuries of changes done by “men” and “the church”. The teachings of Muhammad to them are the same as the teachings of Jesus. And of Moses, and Abraham.
They don’t see Mohammad as inherently more worthy than Jesus, or Moses or Abraham. They are all equally prophets. I mean they even see Jesus as more special than Mohammad in many ways cause like I said they believe in the virgin birth. They believe God literally made Jesus in Mary’s womb.
And there are PLENTY of Jesus quotes in the Quran. Like full on teachings of Jesus.
Thank you.
That’s… not a belief in Islam.
And they were confused when women choose the bear
I’m a man and I also choose the bear. I frequently go backpacking and would absolutely prefer to come across a bear in the woods rather than a random man.
Does despising my gender make me realistic or does it make me a misandrist? Maybe it’s both. Maybe being a misandrist and being a realist are the same fucking thing.
I’m a man, I do a lot of solo hiking and camping.Ii usually carry when I go into the woods and it’s not for wild animals.
The last thing anyone wants when they’re “alone in the woods” is finding out they’re not alone. I’ll take a wild animal experience over a wild human experience every time.
Hopefully it’s a black bear, though.
Woah now, let’s not put bears into categories based solely on the colour of their fur.
Fun fact: Black bears can be several different colors!
Bears are less unpredictable. Also the woods are a context you expect to find a bear in so it’s not out of the norm. All that combined with years and years of true crime stuff makes the answer to that question pretty predictable, regardless of the gender.
I have not actually read the primary source for this though, only encountered it on social media so maybe they asked men the same question and they chose another person? I should probably look it up.
Yeah that checks out. My Gen z girlfriend has said as much. She’s into women and “men who are at least old enough to remember 9/11 clearly.”
The Gen Z men she has dated were “rude, cruel, and more interested in controlling me(her).”
If she was dating millennial men when millennials were in their 20s she’d probably complain about PUA techniques being used against her.
What is PUA?
Power Utility Application. “Electrify your woman with this 1 easy trick” bs stuff.
Pick up artist.
That’s almost a litmus test for the Millennial/Gen Z border (for the US at least). Usually remembering 9/11 means you’re more on the Millennial side. Though generations are fuzzy and ill-defined.
For me, it’s if they can remember a world without Pokemon
I disagree, that puts the last few years of Millennials into Gen Z though. That puts me into Gen Z and I’m a few years before the cutoff.
If you can’t remember a world before Pokemon than you can’t understand how amazing Pokemon truly are
I was 5 when Pokemon came to the US, so I don’t think it’s fair to say I remember a world before Pokemon. I have memories from before 5 sure, but nothing that counts as knowing what the world was like. And that’s not even counting hearing about Pokemon from my Japanese cousins before it came here.
I also don’t think it’s fair to say I can’t understand how amazing Pokemon are when those games dominated my whole childhood.
I guess it’s the difference between a child who lived in poverty suddenly getting rich versus a child born into wealth
What are you even talking about? My point is that’s not a good measure of the generational transition from Millennial to Gen Z. It’s the wrong timing.
I would like to go back to a world without Pokemon.
The difference in frequency of these sexist attitudes in gen z men compared with millennials was at most 5%. I believe your girlfriend’s experience but I don’t think it has much relevance to this study. Although generations are a terrible way to categorize data. I wish they weren’t used in research like this. I also wish they gave more country-specific data in this particular study.
A buddy got married years ago at his wife’s church, which meant part of the ceremony was the priest asking her to vow to always obey him and do whatever he asked without question.
Like, it wasn’t just a part of the vows he rambled thru, it was its own separate thing and she had to respond “yes” or the priest wouldnt have married them.
Super fucking weird and everyone under 60 laughed.
Neither of them took it seriously, but she wanted married in her church, and her pledging total and lifelong obedience was a requirement the church insisted on.
Lots of people do take it seriously though
“Babe. Babe. You vowed. You vowed, ok? You HAVE to watch the MarioKart speedrun with me.”
Anytime he can’t do shit with us, someone is guaranteed to say:
She promised…
I don’t think it’s ever worked tho
I mean, she’s willing to obey some priest for no reason so why wouldn’t she obey her husband?
I don’t understand this. I’m married. My wife is the coolest person I know. I wouldn’t dare try to control her. She is too much fun.
It’s pretty simple.
When life has no clearly defined gender roles, people will seek them out, and men and women both, are reverting back to 1950s expecations where gender roles were clearly defined.
I’m a single guy in my early 40s. The past 5 years on the dating market, most women I meet now want 1950s gender roles. These are often educated, liberal, successful women. But they have this fantasy that they will only be happy if they find a man who pays all the bills and bosses them around, and all think Don Draper is a ‘real man’. The idea of a partnership where you say split costs and responsibilities, is totally rejected as by them and they see it as surefire path to misery (because they are already paying their own bills and they are miserable doing so). They see their role in a relationship as to quit their career and be a homemaker/mother, and my job is to work 60-80 hours a week to earn a massive salary and pay for everything. It’s fantasy-escapism and they’d rather ‘hold out’ for this fantasy to escape their life… than try to actually be in a partnership where their daily responsibilities don’t go away…
And when they find out that as a man, I enjoy cooking, cleaning, keeping my house etc, they get really pissed off because they see me as ‘not needing a woman in my life’. No… shit. I don’t ‘need’ a woman. I want a partner to split chores and bills with and raise kids together with. I have no interest in working 80 hours a week to ‘provide’ and never seeing my wife/kids.
I think it’s weird too. Every couple I know has a partnership model, but the single women on the dating market who want that… are very rare. But 10 years ago, it was quite common and I met women who were looking for this, but the world has changed and people now are adopting these extremist beliefs as a coping mechanism for their unhappiness with their lives. The irony being I bet if these people got their 1950s relationships… they find out that makes them miserable too.
Gotta remember selection bias. The single women are (eternally) on the dating market because of their horrible views, the ones who aren’t horrible are not on the dating market anymore or only very very short.
Wouldn’t that argument work the same way for men? To be clear, I’m not a fan of that argument for any gender. But fair is fair.
I’m polyam, so my experiences are quite different. I’m finding more married people looking for a third, which is awkward when I’m more of a “relationship anarchist” and don’t want to put my partners into tiers above/below each other (or be put into such tiers myself.)
No, men are obviously evil
People just want all the the benefits with none of the drawbacks. They are just selfish and greedy.
I often see the whole ‘monogamish’ nonsense now too. It basically means, I want all the benefits of monogamy, but when I also want to be able to bang other people when I want, but also you can’t do that because that would make me feel insecure…
I actaully did date someone like that. She wanted to date other people, but as soon as I started seeing other women she got very very angry and jealous and told me it was not ‘fair’. She was just a selfish asshole who wanted me to be monogamous to her, while she was no monogamous to me. I’ve met other women with this attitude too, but I once they express that nonsense I move on.
Poly is too much work and complexity for these people. They just want to be children who want to do what they feel without any consequences or responsibilities that something polyamory requires. And like children, they throw temper tantrums when they don’t get their way. They want to eat their ice cream on a hot sunny day and they are angry that it is melting too fast.
You’re absolutely right on that. Some people really just want the freedom for themselves, but not for their partners. Which is ridiculous. After all, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” If someone hasn’t got the maturity it takes for polyamory, then they’re not ready for it.
it’s not selection bias, it’s what’s on the market.
unless you think I should start trying to date married women?
married women’s views aren’t relevant to single men because they aren’t available to date.
Are you dating women your own age? I’m a woman in my early 40s and have literally never met a woman my age who thought like this. If you’re dating women ten years younger than you you’ll be selecting for the type who likes to date older men - usually for exactly the reasons you complain about (they want someone to take care of them).
Ever since I turned 35 every women I meet wants this. I have never met a woman who wants an equal partner in dating since I was in my early 30s, over 10 years ago.
Yes I date women my own age. They are the ones who are the most vocal and adamant about it. When I meet women you are under 35, on rare occasional, they tend to be less aggressive about it. For example, women under 35 don’t ask me my salary on a first date, women over 40, almost always do. All they seem to care about is how much money I have and if I am going to give it to them. Like, they ask me to take them on expensive trips, buy them cars, and think going on $500 dinner takes should be a weekly event. They all have advanced degrees, PhDs, JDs, MDs.
And every time I talk about this, I get this comment. ‘oh you must only be dating shallow young women for their looks.’ No, I date average looking women who are my own age, and they almost exclusively want a 1950s style relationship, even when they are doctors, lawyers, etc. their ‘ultimate romantic fantasy’ is to quit their job and be ‘taken care of’.
I also live in Boston, the most educated city in the country, and yet all these educated successful women basically aspire to be financially dependent housewives. It baffles the hell out of me. I put in my profile on dating apps that I want an equal partner and I get weird messages about what loser I am from these women because a man’s job is to provide for her his woman and her career/job should be optional.
Last week I was on a date and this woman I was with told me she values her career and independence BUT she really is looking for a man who ‘take care of her’ such that she doesn’t have to work anymore. And I laughed and said that’s not what I am looking for, I want someone to split bills with and build a life together as a working couple and she got angry with me. Then when the check came she was like ‘WELL I GUESS I SHOULD SPLIT THE BIll’ all bitter and shit. It was miserable. This is like 90% of my dates, it’s the same stuff every time, it’s like they all copy pasted from the same script…
women’s social media is rife with this 1950s shit. all my friends and family are in partnerships where they both work and split bills and raise kids together. but on the singles dating market in my city, I never ever meet any such women who want that type of life. I probably should try to date at 25 year olds, because when I was 25 I was with a girlfriend who wanted to split bills and pay her own way. but in my life experience, once women hit 35 they decide they hate being independent career women and ‘deserve’ to be ‘taken care of’. when i was younger I never met women who talked that way.
I can’t argue against your lived experience, but it doesn’t match mine at all. Maybe they’re all sick of dating irresponsible losers and this is some misguided screening technique? Good luck out there, it sounds like you’re having a difficult time finding someone you like!
They think I’m an irresponsible loser because I don’t make 500K a year and own two vacation homes. I am on a ‘poverty’ wage of 150K and I own a two bed condo with two pets and a car. I’m clearly a failure at life! Especially because I worked my way up from a poor family rather than the bank of mom and dad buying me my condo. That also tends to REALLY piss them off.
What you describe doesn’t reflect reality in my region of the world or amongst any of the people I know. Not sure where you are but you’re making a lot of generalized statements that should be a hell of a lot more specific. Do you live in Amish country maybe?
No I live in upper class America.
I’m making statements about my life and experiences. And how human beings operate. Human beings need someone to tell them how to act, and what to do, and how to behave. They dislike not having that.
That’s because you’re a terrible husband.
It’s disgusting how proud you are about the sick gratification you get from forcing that poor women to use her tiny little lady brain for your own personal amusement.
Report to 4chan before it’s too late! They’ll help you set you straight. Make sure you have nudes handy as payment for their services.
I try to control my wife the same amount that she tries to control me, which is to say not much at all but we communicate expectations which we think are reasonable. Like yeah, have friends and hang out with them without me, but I’m gonna be pissed off if you stay out until 3am without checking in. Extreme example, but you get my point. We check in before planning/doing shit that affects each other, and once in a while there is a good reason for the answer to be no.
Communication is the #1 thing that’s kept my wife and I happy and together. I don’t think it’s “controlling” to let my wife know where I’m going, or for her to tell me where she is going, that’s just normal married couple stuff.
TLDR news did a video on this a few months ago. Globally men are going hard right and women are going hard left.
It’s not quite as bad as that: women are turning left more than men are turning right. A few young men are getting fully into fascism/neoreactionary ideology, though many more are just bumbling around muttering “I don’t agree with everything Joe Rogan says but he is funny”. Meanwhile, young women are in the woods looking for a nice bear.
In my experience, women are politically left. But domestically they are conservative.
Most of the progressive feminist types I try to date… all want 1950s gender roles in a relationship. And constantly complain that men are ‘manly’ enough in the sense of wanting to dominating others, themselves included. They think that me asking them what restaurants they like, is ‘feminine’. To me it’s just basic human communication.
Something like 50%+ of dating profiles in my city all make references to 1950s gender shit. And they list their politics as liberal or moderate. They want like 1950s style dating too and see the TV show Mad Men as some sort of model of how they want their lives to be, rather than realizing it is a tragedy.
This book came out decades ago and pretty much predicted everything.
“Future Shock” by Alvin Toffler. His premise was that the coming Digital Age would divide the world into the people who were going to embrace the changes and the people who couldn’t/wouldn’t give up on the Industrial Age.
