Hacker News Reader

Comment by whacked_new | Hacker News Reader

In his defense, he's merely speaking out of Bayesian consequences. There's nothing to dare or not dare about. If you hear people get mugged in a neighborhood more than another, you'd avoid it and possibly speak out against it, but as a consequence, violate all the good people in the neighborhood.

What I feel is lacking, and very much so, is the other side of the perspective. (and by that I don't mean by merely pointing out that opinion is disrespectful; I mean by showing evidence for the opposite of the opinion)

View on HN

Really? He didn't present any evidence, aside from some anecdotal stories about "everyone he knows," and instead presented a series of terrible stereotypes.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat2.pdf More than half of women work, and while that number is lower than the percentage of men who work (74%), it's hard to tell from the data presented whether or not advanced age affects the numbers.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/fa... Out of 49 million women between the ages of 21 and 44, there are only 5.4 million stay-at-home moms (98,000 dads, possibly not including the temporarily unemployed).

Honestly, I don't feel like debunking everything. I feel like the onus is on me to disprove specious claims, rather than the other way around. It's akin to arguing with a creationist.

what does women working have anything to do with the discussion?

In the course of this discussion, you have indicated that the men you know married women who do nothing, contribute nothing to the marriage, and somehow expected the men to give them half of everything, despite the fact that they are bitchy, lazy, worthless cows who don't put out.

yes they contribute nothing to the marriage, but that doesn't mean that they don't work. All of them do, except one who got laid off recently

How does a working parent contribute nothing to a marriage?

By spending all the money she earns on herself.

And you know many of these lazy women! In fact, all the American women you know are just like that! This is so far-fetched, so unlikely a scenario, that you have to see how ridiculous you're being.

Unless you have their balanced checkbook on hand to prove me wrong, I sincerely doubt any mom is spending all the money on herself. Working mothers don't have the freaking time to spend a whole paycheck on themselves, especially with their husbands hiding at the gym, leaving the bulk of the housework and childcare to her. No wonder these women don't want to sleep with your friends.

not all American women, just the married ones I know. Look I'll be the first to say, that based on the area that I live in the women are most likely slanted into the princess syndrome area. But that doesn't make what I'm saying any less true(at least for this area).

And yes they are spending all the money on themselves, they can do that, since their husbands cover all the other expenses.

If you don't mind my asking, where do you live?

I've been well-aware of the low average quality of American women since college. In high school, I expected them to have horrible tastes in men (pro-meathead jock, anti-smart guy) because that's what the movies told me was "normal" for HS. Actually, HS was not nearly as bad as I'd been led to anticipate. It was the realization that women's tastes didn't improve when I went to an elite college that led me to think something might be rotten in America. A semester abroad confirmed that there really is a difference in the average quality of women, and that the US comes up short.

However, this is an incredibly diverse country, and I live in New York. So, although the average quality might be low, it doesn't need to affect me and, since college, the problem has never prevented me from having a solid dating life in spite of it. Amazing women are definitely out there.

I live in NJ, so you being from New York can probably attest to the low quality of marriage material in the area. Not that it doesn't exist, but its more of a needle in a haystack problem.

So I find that its easier to date, at least that way when you both grow tired of each other, you don't lose half your stuff in the divorce.

I live in NJ, so you being from New York can probably attest to the low quality of marriage material in the area.

No. New York is very diverse. This city's so big that I don't even know what the average quality is, but it doesn't matter; you can definitely find good women here-- including women who've never been corrupted by mainstream American culture, on account of having grown up elsewhere. Of course, there are also the disgusting, materialistic Sex and the City sluts, but if you're not an idiot, you can avoid them.

Not that it doesn't exist, but its more of a needle in a haystack problem.

If you know what you're doing, you can get the low-quality women to reject you pretty quickly. (You'll get rejected a lot.) Don't try to impress them by playing the infantile games that attract low-quality women (e.g. pretending to be aloof to project high status) and don't buy them shit.

The strategy a lot of men use to get laid is to play to the lowest common denominator. It works for racking up a lot of casual sex. It sucks for finding a marriage partner. It's like trying to make an ice sculpture using a battle axe. Keep your sets of habits separate and, if you can't do that, then play it straight and don't fuck around.

You are dead on about Europe and NJ. Nothing worse than Jersey dumpster diving, especially when you are unaware that is what you are doing.

Some friends of mine went to Europe and came back with 10s, all of them. The most shocking thing they told me was that to talk to women there...you don't even have to have anyththing, you can just be you

Unfortunately, I learned too late. For all the young college guys out there having a hard time, take heed. You get a dilution hit cashing out now, just hold onto your stock and ride it through. Time is on your side.

Is Jersey especially bad, compared to the rest of the US?

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Pacific Northwest?

For all the young college guys out there having a hard time, take heed. You get a dilution hit cashing out now, just hold onto your stock and ride it through. Time is on your side.

Nice way of putting it.

My sampling of Jersey was high school and my early twenties, so I have an especially bad memory of the area.

There was also a completely irrational market and bid up of low quality stuff due to shortages. The attitudes are proportionally high-maintenance. It is a very bad place for a young man to be. Avoid it at all costs. The only place I can think of that could be worse is possibly silicon valley.

As far as the Pacific NW, I don't know much of it and what the prevailing attitudes are. I'm guessing the distance from NY can't be a bad thing and you are more likely to run into females with a more naturalistic, feminine affect. Never been there though, so I am not the man to ask.

I'm dead serious about the dilution hit. Something happens around 30 that suddenly puts you incredibly at ease at the same time that the women are getting more anxious. Also, the younger ones (early 20s) start making themselves more available. I can't tell you how many propositions I have gotten from women who wouldn't look at me once in high school. The funny thing is, when you don't need them, the options keep increasing.

I apologize for being unclear and imprecise. Evidence is not the word I should have used. I'm just talking about perspective. What the OP stated was not evidence, and neither did I have that confused. Those were judgments based on Bayesian reasoning. They are efficient and correct, by probability, in his life. I defended him because in asking "how dare you," you seem to think his opinions violate a basic right of dignity (or something?), when I maintain that it is perfectly reasonable and understandable to have those opinions.

Rather than "evidence" I should have said something like, please provide us with priors that may reinforce the opposite belief. That isn't to say that you didn't already provide some, but it was also obvious that you took this personally, which detracts from what we are looking for (balanced priors).

Also, from a purely pedantic point of view (which I often take for its own sake, nor am I really partial to a particular viewpoint), I don't think any of those census numbers debunk anything, if we're talking about how a marriage may be a bad decision.

Nevertheless, there is only one kind of spurious claim going around here: blanket statements. Whomever believes them makes a fool of themselves, but we -- at least I am -- are still interested in hearing more perspectives :)

It is difficult to see oneself repeatedly characterized as such without getting one's dander up a bit.

My suspicion is that his friends probably love their wives, and he's using their occasional and exaggerated venting to support his weird misogyny. That, or he knows the two unluckiest and easily fooled men in the country.

I think what he's describing is more common than you'd prefer to admit. It's not universal, but it's not uncommon either, so it's probably more accurate to say that he knows two men in the unluckiest quartile. That said, one can't always place the blame on the women deliberately changing into bad people after marriage; a more likely explanation is that the men ignored warning signs early in the process, because they were in love. The phenomenon of a relationship fizzling out and turning hellish is not unique to the US.

No one with a brain will say that all American women are bad. This country is way too racially and culturally diverse for a statement like that to be valid across the board. It's just much harder to find decent women if your selection pool overlaps significantly with the suburban American mainstream, because that section of society is a materialistic, vapid, and alienating cultural wasteland. Decent women exist everywhere, but the proportions are lower.

I believe your somewhat right with your first point. The friends he knows are two unlucky, weak personality males who were too blind or too stupid to realise the inherent problems in getting into a relationship with a dominant woman.

I'm married and extremely happy. My wife has a dominant personality and I have a comparatively relaxed personality, I take things much easier yet I learnt from an early age (with help from my father) that you have to establish your boundaries. When my wife is being snappy or pushy I simply say "do not talk to me like that, I do not appreciate it" and I rarely have a problem beyond that.

I know how I should be treated, I know exactly how much respect I should be getting from my spouse and despite being an easy going person I know I have to stand up for myself because if I don't I'll end up a pathetic divorced loser like so many people do.

Edit: I'd also like to add that most of my friends are in stable happy relationships. In fact I'd probably say my friends in relationships are happier than those who aren't, and I simply don't buy the whole 'getting married makes you unhappy' BS people purport.

> It is difficult to see oneself repeatedly characterized as such without getting one's dander up a bit.

No reason or need to take what he said personally. He's speaking of his own experience, and not accusing you of anything.

But now you're saying he's a misogynist. He might take that personally, and for good reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com