I find it fascinating that this article only calls for young men to change their behavior but demands nothing of young women.
> The study found that among men under 30 years old, over 60 percent are single, almost double that of women in the same age bracket.
Meaning women are happily in relationships with men over 30 probably?
- large number of women staying celibate until their late 20s then starting dating with men in their early 30s.
- men dating multiple women.
- women dating other women.
- couples where women consider themselves in relationships and men consider themselves single.
- people just lying.
- a bad poll.
etc.
Do they want something? Nowhere in the article is there any survey of men in this age group showing a desire for something different . Instead the author states their opinion that men in the age group should want something else and change to get it.
When a woman figures out she doesn't need a man or a relationship to be happy and successful it is considered an empowering realization and choice. When a man comes to the same realization regarding women it is a problem originating with the man which requires him to change.
Are they happy with the situation? The "incel" movement leads me to say no (at least for a number of men).
But it's not that simple. There are a number of women who aren't happy with waiting until nearly 30 either. But what there seems to be is a mismatch between supply and demand. And in every case where the demand exceeds the supply, the price goes us. If you're 25, male, and want a relationship with a female, you may have to be a real catch.
It's natural that the relationship window for men closes slower than for women. A man intending to start a family can comfortably have his first child in his 40s or even 50s. A woman has to move into position within 10-15 years of adulthood or risk massive possible complications for her and the children.
Not being discriminated is not a "nice to have", it's a human right.
Sex with attractive women on the other hand is definitely not a human right.
Is it just me who finds it ridiculous that this has to be spelled out?
I guess sex can be considered a human right in a certain way: no third party should be able to stop a consenting group of people to having sex.
While this is the wrong definition: another person should have sex with me. This latter definition often seems to be the taken meaning of "sex is a human right" and seems to be interpreted that way to advance the interest of that particular person saying it.
I was quite taken aback by the "Does that logic work for Blacks for instance ?" that started this above but then thought that instead of getting angry why not attempt to get my argumentation straightened out instead :).
As you say, that way of thinking makes women literally into less than even a service: for a service you at least need to pay for; a human right on the other hand (right to live, express yourself, freedom of speech etc) is normatively free. The fact that these women who somehow must sleep with you have rights too doesn't seem to occur to these people at all..
That's not obvious though. One could imagine a society where we deem it okay to discriminate on those things when providing employment, but not when having sex.
As much as we want to believe Human Rights are some fundamental property of nature, the reality is they are simply an agreed upon social construct.
> 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
> 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
> Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination.
It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to have any ethical implications.
Arguing that selecting sexual partners is unjust because it is "discrimination" in the (1) sense already assume it is "unjust". It assumes what is to be shown.
In other words. The reason discrimination (1) is considered unjust is not "because it is discrimination" but because people have made arguments for why treating people differently in certain situations is unjust.
What's the argument for why it's unjust that young men can't have sex with people against their preference?
The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better.
Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particular form of discrimination is unjust (in whatever sense you prefer).
It's like saying that healthcare access with attractive nurses is not a right. It's not, but healthcare in many countries is a right.
This elision speaks VOLUMES.
The easy answer is to direct them to Grindr or the nearest gloryhole. There is no shortage of prospective partners willing to relieve even the most undesirable men of their sexual tension.
It may not be exactly what they want, but at that point they're just being picky. Everyone's a girl when they're face-down.
Why doesnt that apply similarly to young women "discriminating" young men ? Shouldn't we need quotas here ?
At the end of the day, companies, while people, are not humans, and they are ultimately owned by humans (call them slaves, if you will). Women, on the other hand, are not under the same sort of regulation, and, not being essentially livestock, are not and should not be subject to the same sort of regulation that may well at times be sensible when applied to companies. Companies, who, in turn, are given quite a few privileges to operate (such as limited liability for their owners, subsidies, privileged tax treatment for a variety of income sources, etc).
It's ridiculous that you needed this spelled out, but happy to oblige.
What about “human right” to have friends?
My informed guess is once you scratch off the Instagram paint it’s an absolute disaster too.
Here's one article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/why-bad-looks-good/2...
Single women, it turns out, are the happiest. And then single women with kids. Men have to change or we'll become obsolete. Our UX, in general, is bad.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married...
So I guess the comparison of 60% single young males vs. 30% single young females would be even more one-sided if we discount those who are willingly single and wouldn't want to change that status.
Life is hard for young men these days.
The article was about men being single and male sexual happiness. It was not about female happiness or fulfillment other then when their choices affect male coupling. That is not bad or anything, but simply not the focus of the article.
Author wrote write article about men without putting mini outrage over women-on-Instagram which is perfectly fine.