Hacker News Reader

Comment by nether | Hacker News Reader

"It's not a gender thing, it's an effort thing."

Then why are there vast asymmetries along gender lines in virtually all aspects of dating? Look at OkTrends (http://blog.okcupid.com), or Dan Ariely's posts on the subject (http://danariely.com/tag/dating/), or this post from a woman http://www.alternet.org/why-online-dating-sucks-men) which indicates high dating success for women putting in low effort. Are men and women just putting in different amounts of effort? The question is then, why is that the case? And that case arises from historical gender roles. It is a gender thing.

Your "many people ..." statements are platitudes that are true no matter what follows ("Many people are smart; many people are dumb."), and do nothing to support what you "suspect."

View on HN

Um, it's pretty explainable by the following theory:

"Men put more work up front -- making the first move, taking the women out and showing them a good time, etc. Women put more work once the relationship gets going (i.e. after much sex has been had). They put up with their guy's frustrating habits and work to advance the relationship forward."

Now, this is a description of the MAJORITY of interactions, not all, of course.

And of course there's this: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

I think its sexist to portray men as dumb sex-starved creatures and only the feminine mystique of women can lead to fulfilling relationships.

I hate the political correctness that is popular today. Essentially, men and boys are punching bags to the feminist activists and attitudes like yours aren't helping.

Why do you have to characterize it like that? You're attacking a straw man.

Men are attracted to women based largely on factors that are more immediately apparent -- such as physical appearance. Women get more attracted the more they invest into a relationship. This follows from biological differences - see that article.

Women are highly biased by attractiveness, and as a man, I really care about more than just physical appearance in a woman. So, yeah, you're incorrectly attacking men.

I am not sure what "women are highly biased by attractiveness" means. Everyone is highly biased by attractiveness by definition of attractiveness.

Also it is truism that, as a man, you care more than JUST physical appearance in a woman. And you, personally, might even not care about looks at all -- though you'd be quite rare in that case.

I am talking about the overall majority of men and women and what makes them attracted and at what time. There have been studies done on this and it's pretty clear: women's biological appearance plays a larger role for men to be sexually attracted, than a man's biological appearance. (I say biological because obviously if you consider clothes, cars, cologne, hairstyle etc. to be part of the equation then those factors matter, but they can be manipulated and are related more to lifestyle than biology.)

Men are more visually stimulated. It's a fact that's been shown over and over. I did not say men are JUST interested in that. I said that in most societies, men put more work up front -- witness how many men devote countless hours to learning pickup techniques and tricks, or getting a great car, or working their ass off to have money to take women out. Meanwhile, women start putting in more effort than the guy once they have invested in the relationship, and it's probably due to the nesting instinct / biological clock. They put a lot of biological investment into having kids, more than men. And so forth.

I am not "attacking men". You are being knee-jerk reactionary.

> Meanwhile, women start putting in more effort than the guy once they have invested in the relationship, and it's probably due to the nesting instinct / biological clock.

I am not sure where you are getting this from. I just want to point out that existing data about who iniatiates divorces and break-ups would seem to contradict what you're saying.

    According to a study published in the American Law and 
    Economics Review, women have filed slightly more than 
    two-thirds of divorce cases in the United States.[80] 
    There is some variation among states, and the numbers 
    have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings 
    by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by 
    women in some states just after no-fault divorce was 
    introduced, according to the paper. Evidence is given
    that among college-educated couples, the percentage of
    divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%.

That is once again a straw man. Showing that women are more likely to file for divorce doesn't mean they didn't get married in the first place. I am talking about the period after people have been going out for a while, and before the marriage, where many women are saying, "where do you see all this going" or hoping he'd propose. This article also talks about people BEFORE they are getting married, not talking about how they get divorced. That is the subject.

Women have a lot more invested in sex and children than men do. And therefore, they are looking to have a stable situation to have a family more than men are.

> Women have a lot more invested in sex and children than men do.

Why would you say that? Again, it appears to be biased against men.

Pregnancy and the discomfort

Childbirth and the pain

Nursing, lack of sleep for years

Rearing

Out of the above four, three are done exclusively by women, and demand a lot of effort and some risks.

It can be incredibly rewarding to have a child... but also very costly. The man can just leave. The pregnant woman can't.

Biased against men? Please.

>Nursing, lack of sleep for years

What? Nursing doesn't last that long, and 'lack of sleep' is part of rearing and not forced on the woman.

>The man can just leave. The pregnant woman can't.

She can give the child up for adoption just as easily as the man can leave the relationship. And rearing is the vast majority of the effort.

Yes women have to do more, but the difference is not nearly as much as you're arguing.

Do you really think it's just as easy for a woman to give her child up for adoption as it is for a man to leave the relationship? I mean: really?

It's not as easy, but if you never wanted to have that baby you can give it up the day it's born, before any real bonding happens.

Is it your argument that women having a stronger attachment to a newborn is a bias against them? Because I was only trying to argue that there was less bias than EGreg said. If she decides she wants the baby then it doesn't seem like a negative to me.

Edit: Oh, I'm a dumbass. I didn't make it clear that the 'giving up the child' was only in response to the pregnancy scenario. That's because once both parents are raising the kid, after a breakup both or either of them would continue raising it.

The person who "has more invested" in something, is the person who values it more. "Having more invested" is a particular idiom in English.

What you are talking about is "sunk cost."

So, in a given relationship, the man or the woman could value the children more.

In a given relationship, the man or the woman could value sex more.

It's not true that all men care less about (i.e., value less) their children, which is what you said, though I don't believe you meant it. That's why I said your statement was biased against men.

I don't see how the generalization "women are more invested in sex" in either your interpretation of that phrase, or mine, would be correct.

Amen! I hate how (at least in American culture) we men are portrayed as having no self control. When did society get such a low opinion of us?

I feel a need to go even further with that statement. Self-control implies that you're bottling up a fundamental harmful impulse. Dear God, are we back in the age of the Puritans, or is it allowed for normal, committed couples to get some mutual enjoyment out of "male" and "female" things?

And yes, I do mean sex. But not just sex. I'm a man who likes to cook and bake, for instance, and I'm good enough at it that my friends and family routinely enjoy the results. What kind of stupidly over-gendered society expects that I should throw away a good hobby because it's "women's work"?!

Relationships are not trades. The husband does not trade "his" household chores for "her" sex. The wife does not trade "her" cooking for "his" income. What the hell is wrong with people who think this way?!

> They put up with their guy's frustrating habits and work to advance the relationship forward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Sex_and_divorce

Myth busted

I am not sure what myth is busted. Just because women are more likely to file for divorce does not mean that they don't push before the marriage, saying, "where do you see all this going" or hoping he'd propose.

Women have a lot more invested in sex and children than men do. And therefore, they are looking to have a stable situation to have a family more than men are. That situation was typically marriage, but now with the state being able to take care of the children so much of the time (public school, various welfare programs etc.) there are lot more single mothers. I think single motherhood is highly correlated to the amount of governmental assistance in a neighborhood. To the extent that there is single motherhood in an area, you may be right -- women may be much less willing to make a relationship work.

As an aside, I am not sure we think that's healthy or desirable. Children born into two-parent households have been shown to do far better on average than children born into single parent households.

I think you need to try a little harder than simply linking a wikipedia article section and saying "myth busted."

Specifically, women being more likely to initiate divorce has nothing whatsoever to do with what the parent is saying. The reason behind that statistic is that women are no longer as dependent on men and therefore have more freedom to end the marriage if they aren't happy with it.

In my defense, the article is heavily referenced, and "60% of filings [were filed] by women in most of the 19th century", when women were still dependent on men. What is your non-anecdotal evidence that women contribute equally or more to relationships?

Marriage is a losing deal for men. It's no wonder we have "MGTOW"s, but no "WGTOW"s.

Of course there are "WGTOW"s. It's called seperatist feminism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism

That's not WGTOW, that's a bunch of angry feminists. AFAIK, MGTOW is not necessarily ignoring women, but it's about staying away from committing to women.

I thought WGTOW was just feminism, not this separatist thing.

Baumeister has a fully developed theory that explains a great deal about modern relationships in economic terms:

http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf

My reaction to the "many men and women ..." sentence was "I think that's the most insightful comment I've ever read on HN!"

Take a closer look at it. The use of "many" does not imply a platitude - 35.22% of the time it's a kinder way of saying "most," and 63.09% of the time we don't have a precise percentage, neither of which negates the validity or importance of the observation.

First, let's get "correlation ≠ causation" out of the way.

Second, where does gender lie—is it a physical characteristic, a social characteristic, a cultural one? I'm physically male but don't really identify myself with any gender. It's not at all clear which direction the identity/behavior causality moves, and most likely it's both ways.

Third, I don't think much positive can come from drawing conclusions that restrict people's capabilities—in this case, ascribing broad behavior to what women and men want. It's an inaccurate viewpoint of the world and only helps you if the viewpoint happens to be a blind spot of yours, i.e. if you're a woman who does believe she won't have an issue finding a male in her thirties or a male who believes he won't be able to find a woman. In this case, of course it will make brilliant sense to you and help you, but not everyone has this problem. I certainly don't; I'm 22 and (hopefully) looking at marriage.

In other words, I don't think examining the cause will necessarily help us in any way but to change it, and binding poor or undesirable to an unalterable part of people will only retard change.

It might also be the case that the gender you identify as isn't what's most important, but the gender that 'normal' society perceives you as.

Of course 'not everyone has this problem' - the article itself states that it is about ~30% of women in a certain age group, so a majority of women don't have this problem, but it's still large enough to have a noticeable impact on society.

And if you're looking at general statistical trends (i.e., any statments in form 'what women want'), then you're talking about approximations/averages up to the first significant digit, and you can easily be accurate to that degree with simplifying by clearly false assumptions as two clear genders and everyone being heterosexual. And it still is worthwhile to make such analysis, since it can provide insight about why/how large trends occur.

> Of course 'not everyone has this problem'

The problem is that not everybody takes this premise for granted!

The biggest problem for this particular group is that they often have completely unrealistic expectations of the men they want to date. They start things off with the fact that they want to marry and have kids and that is often extremely undesirable for men. It's not that men don't eventually want that same goal, but that goal comes well after having dating years or longer. It might take you a year or longer before you determine whether or not you want a woman to be the mother of your kids. During that year, many men are mainly interested in sex and casual companionship.

> Second, where does gender lie—is it a physical characteristic

Yes. Your genitals, height, the shape of your pelvis, the amount of various hormones in your system and the ratio of white/grey matter in your brain are primarily determined by whether you have one X chromosome or two. This is what gender is. All other definitions are pseudo science.

In order to evaluate heterosexual relationships, we should evaluate the groups involved. It is not unethical to do so. This doesn't mean we ignore individuals, which would be unethical, those things are logically not related.

Genitals refer to sex, not gender. And of course gender isn't a scientific term, or it would be useless.

Yes. There is more to gender identity than just male or female and more to sexual attraction than straight/gay/bisexual.

The tendency to put many aspects of life in binary terms when many aspects of life are decidedly not binary, but merely bimodal complicates things terribly.

1. "Depending on the context, the term may refer to biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity." References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

2. "Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955." References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

3. John Money is a charlatan and a child abuser: References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Reply on news.ycombinator.com