Partnership males are ready to negotiate, the negotiations are social and online.
Are Gaza, Ukraine, Somalia and ISS in Syria examples of partnership males having social and online negotiations? I ask only because they are examples of the person you are responding to: a group of males deciding the risk of the death and destruction of everything they hold precious is preferable to what they have now.
To me it looks more like two groups of males fighting to near death for the privilege of running some godforsaken plot of land. The policy is scorched earth. Society, farms, food, schools are disposable pawns in the game. The women and their needs and wants are irrelevant, except as a source of children to feed the armies.
Recently we've seen the USA start down the same road, electing a narcissist who openly bragged about how he demeaned women while on the campaign trail. Maybe they like his attitude to women (and many of the other pillars of modern society), but I suspect it was more a case of just wanting change, and those things matter less than the change they were after.
I'd love if it males really did start solving their problems with social and online negotiations. But history, even recent history is not kind to that view. "The Goodness Paradox" proposes a very different theory to how we got to where we are now. It posits that males solved their problems over the millennia by murdering each other. The paradox is that created evolutionary forces leading to males who were kinder and gentler to others in their village. But to males outside that group, it was always scorched earth, winner takes all.
Historians and social scientists widely agree that a significant surplus of unmarried, low-status young males can cause substantial social and political unrest, a pattern observed in ancient societies and documented throughout history.
The core issue stems from an imbalance in the "marriage market" (often referred to as a "marriage squeeze"), where these "surplus men" have little or no prospect of finding a spouse, establishing a family, or gaining a respected place in society. This lack of integration often leads to frustration and alienation, making these individuals more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior, crime, and violence.
Societies have historically dealt with this "bachelor problem" in several ways, and the failure to do so often resulted in conflict:
• Formation of "Bare Branches": In Imperial China, unmarried men were termed guang gun-er ("bare branches" or "bare sticks"). The Ming Code specifically labeled these marginalized individuals as a potential source of illegal activities and unrest. The Nien Rebellion in the mid-19th century has been linked by some scholars to the presence of large numbers of these disaffected, mobile, and unmarried men.
• Redirected Aggression (War and Exploration): Many land-owning societies historically managed excess male populations by sending them away to fight in wars, join the priesthood, or colonize new territories. Examples often cited include:
• Viking raids: Speculated to be partly driven by a system where not all men could inherit land and marry.
• Mongol warbands: United by leaders like Genghis Khan, potentially channeling the energy of unmarried young men into conquest.
• Janissaries: The Ottoman Empire created a military class of forced Christian converts who were kept as unmarried, loyal soldiers, effectively absorbing a potentially destabilizing group.
• Modern Analogy: In modern times, the pattern repeats in fragile states or cities where extremist groups and gangs heavily recruit from large pools of frustrated young men who lack family ties, jobs, or a clear future.
The existence of a large group of unattached men with little to lose is a recognized warning sign for social instability, leading to domestic and international violence.
• https://rhyd.substack.com/p/the-surplus-male-problem
• https://kar.kent.ac.uk/11430/1/surplus_men_IS_article.pdf
• https://magazine.byu.edu/article/the-dangers-of-losing-balan...