Hacker News Reader

Comment by timeagain | Hacker News Reader

> So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous.

My 2c as a gay man that has many women as friends. They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent. And thinking that gaining status is how to gain women is pretty much the opposite of that.

Patriarchy hurts both sexes. By thinking of status and power as avenues to sex you stunt your ability to connect with others. And it sets up a negative dynamic because if gaining power is the goal then having an egalitarian relationship with your lover is not possible.

> Maybe men use porn and play videogames not because they'd rather have that than a real relationship, but because modern relationships don't offer much more than that.

If you think that lowly of women, why would they spend any time with you at all?

View on HN

> They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent.

That’s what they say, and that’s what women’s magazines have told them. Reality is the opposite, and has been demonstrated over and over both a scientifically and informally.

Or to put it another way: the reason even the hottest 1% of women complain about men’s poor EQ is because they’re not optimising for it when choosing a partner. They’re partnering with the matching top 1% of men based on social status and wealth, and every attribute unimportant to women has a random value. That’s why even attractive women with their pick of partners will complain about men’s EQ. They don’t care enough to choose a man with high EQ, but they care just enough to complain about it.

It’s like someone buying a Tesla and then bitching about minor quibbles. If they cared about those issues they would have bought a Toyota.

Not to mention that emotionally intelligent is somewhat of an insulting term. Men and women deal with and express emotions in radically different ways, that doesn't make one way more mature or intelligent.

Some people recognize that fact, some don't. Surely that disparity is itself an aspect of emotional intelligence?

I'm not sure I follow how that's insulting.

It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped.

You can frame it how you want. It can also be projected as a strength (emotional control). Or men simply being less interested in exchanging emotions intensely as it's just not that important to them.

The "emotional control" that causes them to absolutely blow the fuck up? It's not unintelligent, primitive or underdeveloped, it's simply a meme, an idea that some people can even sincerely believe but at the end it's a pure lie.

> blow the fuck up

I would consider the possibility of BPD. This is kind of a hallmark symptom.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disor...

Point being: I’ve known men who are “stoic” in this way and emotionally stable because they don’t otherwise have mental health issues.

Men experience significantly lower rates of most common mental disorders; that gap is wider in younger people, appears to be widening over time and persists after controlling for confounding variables. Men are more likely to die by suicide, but they're drastically less likely to attempt suicide; the discrepancy is accounted for by men choosing more lethal means.

There is simply no evidence to support the idea that women are better at coping with psychological distress, or that men would benefit from adopting stereotypically female coping strategies.

>Men experience significantly lower rates of most common mental disorders;

Men are diagnosed significantly lower, not experience.

Well we don't really know, as we have no blind test for this. Science on humans is hard.

I've known men that blow up in extremely stressful circumstances, like slapping things off the table or the stereotypical punching a hole in the wall, for me it is a sign of emotional immaturity. When you're 20 if you do it you've still got some growing up to do, when you're 30 and you do it honestly I judge you. And I know some circumstances can be extremely taxing emotionally, and in very extreme circumstances I can understand losing composure a little, but generally speaking a man should maintain his composure and only react aggressively to actual aggression.

As someone who would've never done this age 10-40, experienced extremely severe trauma at age 40, then started having uncontrollable rage fits age 40-43 (it's mostly subsided now, but I still do get more irritated than I used to) I wouldn't be so quick to judge. I thought the same as you before something happened, but it turns out PTSD is a hellofa drug. It's not something you're able control. I didn't learn my way out of it through maturity, I grinded my way through it losing friends along the way. I have no idea what caused me to stop either, other than just distance from the trauma.

That would be the opposite of emotional control. But surely you got the point that besides suppressing emotions men also tend to simply have less emotional needs or desires to express them.

To bring this down to a real world meme-like example: my girlfriend can fill a solid hour every day discussing her work day and in particular developments in her dealings with colleagues.

I struggle to fill a minute. I'm not suppressing anything, there's simply not much there as it comes to work.

These are just differences, nothing wrong with it.

Emotional intelligence and emotional control are different. They're separate concepts, though I'd bet they correlate a bit.

It's possible to be emotional and out of touch.

It's possible to be stoic and receptive.

It doesn’t sound like this is contrary to the idea that it’s insulting when men are considered to lack emotional intelligence because they are stoic. Indeed, it’s possible to be stoic and receptive and it’s insulting when people act like it’s not.

My cute toddler mini-me has a high amount of emotional intelligence and intuitively understands other people's emotions, and will reflect other people's emotions.

She also has no emotional control and is likely to bite you, or bawl on the floor crying when she doesn't get her way.

She sounds adorable! Mine doesn't bite any more but there are still fits of uncontrollable emotion. They very much grok other people's feelings though and are quick with empathy.

> It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped.

I've heard a lot about men needing to be more expressive and open about their inner emotional state, but I've never heard people mention stoicism in the same context or that stoicism necessarily leads to the opposite of that.

Or that stoicism is associated with being unintelligent, primitive or underdeveloped.

Have you heard it from your circle in a social setting? I'm curious where you heard such sentiments.

> never heard people mention stoicism in the same context

I’m not particularly familiar but I understand this “stoicism” is not really the Stoicism one might read about on wikipedia (maybe related but ultimately not congruent). In a practical sense, when people say “more expressive and open” they are necessarily talking about the opposite of this “stoicism”.

This “more expressive and open” is also often expressed as “more emotionally intelligent” and that’s insulting to the emotional intelligence of such “stoics”. It’s very literally “they don’t express themselves correctly” and I can’t imagine someone not being insulted by such a claim of their personality.

Emotional intelligence is about understanding what you are feeling and why, not about how you present your emotional state. It’s what allows someone to realize they’re getting angry because they had unspoken expectations that weren’t met, or because they were experiencing anxiety from unrelated triggers. This kind of understanding prevents someone from blowing up in the first place because they understand the root cause isn’t what our brain wants to jump on in the moment. A more “stoic” person may be that way because they are highly emotionally intelligent and avoid getting overwhelmed. Or, they may be bad at it, and are just bottling it up to explode randomly at inappropriate times. It’s related, but tangential.

I'm not a native speaker so it could be the wrong word. I wasn't aiming for Stoicism, the philosophy. Instead trying to describe the effect where some men seem emotionally indifferent, or present themselves as such.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense.

> Men and women deal with and express emotions in radically different ways

With this statement, I think you are coming from a place of cultural bias. I find that men and women are more alike than "radically different" with emotions, with similar emotional needs and wants (perhaps to different degrees, but there is much variation within gender, I feel). However, in some societies, how they are allowed to recognize, validate, and meet those needs and wants are strongly shaped and regulated. For example, in Roman society, a woman who would want fame and prestige from being seen as virtuous would try to become a Vestal, or show extreme fidelity to a husband publicly. Today, a surer route to fame and prestige will look very different.

I don't think you know what is being meant here by emotionally intelligent. An abusive person who cannot control their anger, or someone who abuses alcohol to cope with their feelings in a detrimental way is an example of someone who is not emotionally intelligent. A person who can, most of the time, empathize with you, and can give and accept help and advice based on your goals putting you first (and explicate and communicate situations wherein they have to prioritize themselves or someone else), and knows their own goals and emotions and what they need, are some of the traits and behaviors of what people refer to as an emotionally intelligent person. Sometimes you see the term emotionally mature, which means the same thing.

I feel like this idea of emotional intelligence is impossible to achieve without first having a partner to develop it along side . And given the surprising amount of men who never have a partner these days, to expect them to come factory installed with these settings seems like expecting a 3 year old not to spill juice on their shirt. I wouldn't expect a 25 year old woman who has never been on a date to understand the nuances of how to be a good partner either.

Very good point. I'm a straight man in my mid 40s. Had two long-term relationships over the past 20 years that eventually ended. Mostly had shorter ones and one longer one in my teens/20s.

I've been seeing someone now for just shy of 2 years and I've really noticed how much differently I approach things now. Obviously not perfect, but things I simply didn't understand or know how to deal with constructively in the past seem at least familiar now. Essentially, I have a clue now.

This isn't an "end state" but rather a process of learning and developing that continues - but has gotten to a point where I feel like a much better partner than I probably was in the past. I didn't have terribly great role models to emulate in this regard and I wasn't born knowing how to participate in a romantic relationship. But I've at least had some experience in what can work, what doesn't work well, and where I need to focus to avoid mistakes I've made or others could've handled better.

> Very good point. I'm a straight man in my mid 40s. Had two long-term relationships over the past 20 years that eventually ended. Mostly had shorter ones and one longer one in my teens/20s.

I mean, my relationship history is approximately similar, and I’ve got to say:

This qualifies me to give approximately zero relationship advice, and has gained me approximately zero insight in to the human condition.

As a bi man, the dynamics of dating men and women are very different. It ranges from the very explicit (you must plan the date; you must pay for the date) to the comparatively subtle (you must be emotionally stoic and not show too much vulnerability; you must have a stable, well-paying job; you must be "confident"). These things aren't standards you would be subject to in a purely platonic relationship. It's not even so much those things making you "hot" but those being prerequisites to being considered a potential partner.

Gay men are much less strict about demanding a performance of the male gender role (except for those elements of it relating to physique).

That’s true I might be biased by hanging with women who hang with gay men. It is also true that women perpetuate these dumb stereotypes of masculinity as well.

The kicker for me is how these dynamics ruin the ability for men and women to become friends. Like you say, these wouldn’t be issues in a platonic relationship. But this cloud of expectation looms over any straight-platonic friendship between men and women. How the relationship would have to change if it became romantic.

Makes me glad I’m gay.

Straight folk have lots to learn from gay folk. Probably starting with how to do marriage right[0].

[0] https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/2/13/study-gay-people-h...

The study can not be accessed without payment, but if they did not correctly control for kids, it is useless.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6731029/

> Covariates. We control for covariates that are likely associated with both psychological distress and marital strain including respondent age, education, and employment status (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003), spouse health status (Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017), relationship duration (Proulx et al., 2007), and children in household (Mirowsky & Schieman, 2008).

So at least they attempted to account for obvious covariates.

This is my favorite kind of scientific criticism. People who can't even access a paper just saying "well I bet they didn't control for obvious thing X" and then moving on.

This is my favorite kind of personal attacks. Never have I said "they did not control", but here you are.

Not a personal attack. A criticism of the content of your post.

> Never have I said "they did not control"

They didn’t make this claim.

> "well I bet they didn't control for obvious thing X"

Is a close paraphrase of

> if they did not correctly control for kids, it is useless

The comment seems to be intended as a dismissal while calling itself out as uninformed (“cannot be accessed without payment” suggests it wasn’t accessed).

They did, but the study does not make the same conclusion as the article you linked.

TBH I am not familiar with the the way data is presented in this last link, and likely biased toward my own expectations, but my uneducated read of table 2 says that children, education, being a woman, and employment status are the largest contributors to the distress.

> It is also true that women perpetuate these dumb stereotypes of masculinity as well.

The ones who are complaining that men lack emotional maturity or inteligence are the same ones that will post on 2xc and say: "Am I a bad person for dumping a guy because I saw him crying and I'm no longer attracted to him?"

Actually, they are probably not the same people at all.

You can’t judge behavior of any group based on anonymous internet posts. When you run into the crazy person on the bus, it’s important to realize there’s a bus load of people around them that aren’t crazy. The internet just helps get all of them concentrated into the same place.

"They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent."

False. A lowly educated low earner male that is emotionally intelligent will not get selected. Every dating/marriage statistic confirms that women refuse to marry down. So they want both status/wealth and emotional intelligence.

A male friend of mine is 5'3" tall, no college education, and sells pottery for a living - and didn't make much money doing it, based on his apartment. He's also hilarious and kind. Anyway, he met and married a 5'10", attractive woman who is a principal at a PE firm and semi-professionally competes in salsa dancing competitions.

Happy for them, this should happen more. But an exception does not negate the broad pattern.

Sense of humor cuts right through a lot of obstacles. Plenty of women will feel attracted to you if you can make them laugh often.

But, of course, you have to meet up first, and the Tinder generation may not pass this first obstacle.

Wise words. When seeing a person in public they are so infinitely more rich compared to 3 filters in an app. But there doesn't seem to be any sign of this returning in big ways.

>They aren’t looking for “status”

Are you sure? Because multiple studies contradict that claim. I will point out that status can mean different things depending on the (sub)culture and context. Perhaps in some social circles, high EQ is high status.

>and it sets up a negative dynamic because if gaining power is the goal then having an egalitarian relationship with your lover is not possible.

Status is multifaceted. Women are attracted to status, but that doesn't mean women can't be high status as well. High status could be anything from being good at some niche hobby to making lots of money to being athletic.

I said nothing "lowly" about women. I happen to have a very rewarding, honest and low stress relationship. It took me years to find anyone that I was willing to give my life to because, frankly, our culture nowadays is one where people want what they want but are willing only to give what they want to. This goes for both men and women. The give and take goes both ways, I self reflected for a long time and determined that I was willing to give of myself, and I expect the same from a partner, and people that have that insight are few and far between.

Complete BS. You're telling me they want emotional intelligence from a janitor, retail attendant?

What patriachy?

The idea only makes sense if you believe a matriarchy would be better. There has never been any anthropological record of a matriarchy, that is to say that any society that had a matriarchal structure was quickly overrun by those that didn’t. Some fate.

Men and women are different, and what you call a patriachy is just the natural order of things, some variation between individuals not withstanding.

Vague phrases like emotional intelligence are often being used as a euphemism for other things unfortunately, for example, women are drastically less likely than men to be politically tolerant. So this can simply be women saying they only want to date very liberal men, but they don't want to phrase it like that because it sounds bad, so they decide that liberalism is the same thing as emotional intelligence (the liberal mindset seeing itself as more empathetic, in touch with other people's emotions).

https://unherd.com/thepost/is-wokeness-killing-the-marriage-...

Two of the most important trends in American life are the increasing tendency for women to identify as liberal, and the increasing intolerance shown by liberals to their ideological opponents. These trends are no doubt related, since women are more ideologically intolerant than men. Put together, they spell trouble for the future of marriage in the US.

[...] the 2020 American Perspectives Survey revealed that 79% of Democratic women and 48% of Republican men would be unwilling to date someone with a different view of Trump.

No discussion of dating trends can be complete without this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com