I've been watching some "men's content" lately, about dating and other perspectives from conservative men on Youtube. Sure it's a little annoying in some ways, the biases and assumptions, but they make some good points. I think most of it even works, but of course not in the form most typically presented. It's all interesting to me as a set of social trends, even though it's not personally relevant.
One main point is that feminist women ruin dating experience for both men and women by sleeping around in their 20s and 30s, instead of seeking out committed relationships. This shrinks the pool of prospects for typical men, and some end up going through life single, as some women also do. Many men then "go their own way;" they drop the dating or long term pair bonding theme entirely.
Does this work though; is this really what is happening? Sure; it's partly that. Maybe the part that works best is that on dating apps 80% of all women select 20% of all men (or maybe it's 90-10, this is just the generality), and then 80% of all men select 80% of all women. It still doesn't go well for most people, beyond the 20% not getting matched, because most women can sleep with the smaller set of most attractive guys using the app, but there's no need for them to actually date anyone, because they are matched so often. It ends up working for hook-ups. To be clear I've never downloaded or used a dating app; I'm passing on the take I'm seeing described, generally relatively consistently, but as summarized here expressed from a narrow and biased perspective.
All this extends to relationships, per this repeated shared understanding, not just to casual physical encounters. Most women are trying to date a smaller set of more desirable guys, who are more attractive, wealthier, and to a lesser extent with a decent personality. The "hook-up" theme repeats in a different form; there is no need for those guys to settle for one relationship partner, so they can serial date. The women can too, just in a broader proportion related to who can participate.
The cycle--as described--doesn't end until those most desirable guys finally decide to settle down, and then the medium level of desirable women need to settle for whoever else is still around. Of course this is never presented as a theme everyone experiences; the traditional model for people just dating someone they like still works for many people, someone who has shared interests, without overriding concern over looks or wealth. Then these people can marry at any age, not just in their late 30s.
One more aside on this "desirability" theme, and I'll get to the details they propose, and how their model may be wrong. This type of content really embraces that use of a 10 point number scale for how attractive someone is, as if "a 6" might be a 5 or 7, but it's that clear, that you can objectively tell. I think that doesn't work, but still the general points don't change; physical attractiveness is a real thing, a main input to people choosing who they date or partner with in a longer term.
Judgement about attractiveness is consistent, just perhaps not that consistent. Then any of these content creator / influencer types allow that personality enters in, beyond wealth also being a factor for men, so they're not setting up a completely unreasonable model. They just overemphasize some patterns, and I think in the end they're missing one main one. It's easiest to specify by citing an example from a different culture.
Left-over women in China
This theme has been discussed for years, of how there is a large set of wealthy, attractive, desirable women in China who are left without marriage partners past the ages of 30 and 40. Why? Sources interpret this differently, but the main theme seems to be that women can date and marry up a level related to social hierarchy, or at their own level, but not "down." Attractiveness, the main emphasis in this Western social media commentary model, also enters in, but there is more focus on finding a relationship partner to solidify social role and position, and to start a family. This ties more to social status.
As a result there are more higher level social status women than can pair up with the equivalent higher social status level men, and some lower status men remain single as well. This is where all this is headed; I think this pattern underlies what is happening in the US much more than is recognized.
It's hard to describe what that social status issue is like within Asian cultures. I live in Thailand now, and have for 16 years, and it's completely different from the US here. Let me give an example: you use different terms of respect for people of different social levels in Thailand, or even change formal language use slightly with different people. It's as if there would be three different words for "sir," and you would use whichever relates to that social connection, depending if they are on your social status level, or above or below it. The lower or even level term of respect might translate as closer to friend, dude, or bud, or to mate in British or Australian English. I can't describe how it all works, or how judgments work out on the fly, or at least it's too difficult and tiresome to offer examples, so I'll leave it at that. Social status is more important, much more immediately relevant in terms of daily interactions, and clearer to everyone. Then it also means more for who you should or can date or marry.
In the US there are the three classes defined by wealth, low, medium, and high, and those are a bit flexible related to potential for moving up or down. It's not the same thing. In the US as well someone could be born into a good family and not pursue wealth, and others would (or could) still recognize that they are from a different background, and placed higher, in a very rough sense. That's an odd exception. The same can happen in relation to "new money;" people can come from modest means and more common (lower) social level and never take up the status, perspective, and practices of the traditional higher class. No need to name names or types; you get it.
To me it works to set all that aside though; in general wealth defines social level, in the US. Or looked at a different way there just isn't the same emphasis on social status levels, even though to some extent it still works. There are sub-cultures, and even different language forms, that divide poor people from urban areas and wealthy people born into more affluent circumstances.
The language form social level marker is especially interesting. At my second engineering career job in Baltimore I met with forklift drivers who I literally could not understand, even though they were speaking English. The owners of my company were clearly "old money;" they could easily slip into speech patterns followed by NPR announcers, although one of two owners generally didn't, out of preference. My roommates there were "new money;" they were well off, and made a point of showing that off, often excessively, but it wasn't about being raised in a higher social level sub-group. They used the same generally neutral form of English I did.
Back to the Chinese left-over women and men theme (higher status women, and lower status men), from a distance it looks like these women are not appealing because they are too independent, or too wealthy, out of reach for too many people to date or marry. Some of that could apply, but it seems the main root cause is this underlying imbalance, that women "marrying up" leads to gaps at the two related ends. Then whether any one person remains unmarried or not depends on lots of circumstances and inputs. The women tend to be urban, living in developed areas, and the men rural, retaining lower status roles in those places.
And that's it, the whole model and interpreted pattern. Here I'm going to claim that's part of what is going on in the US too, that it's one input.
I haven't supported this with any references. This runs long focusing on the Western social media commentary examples, the main theme. Although it applies to men and women Google search for the women's side turns up the most related content. This Wikipedia article on this "sheng nu" theme covers the basics:
The National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China (NBS) and state census figures reported approximately 1 in 5 women between the ages of 25-29 remain unmarried.[1] In contrast, the proportion of unwed men in that age range is much higher, sitting at around 1 in 3.[4] In a 2010 Chinese National Marriage Survey, it was reported that 9 out of 10 men believe that women should be married before they are 27 years old.[1]...
...A study of married couples in China noted that men tended to marry down the socio-economic ladder.[4] "There is an opinion that A-quality guys will find B-quality women, B-quality guys will find C-quality women, and C-quality men will find D-quality women," says Huang Yuanyuan. "The people left are A-quality women and D-quality men. So if you are a leftover woman, you are A-quality."[1] A University of North Carolina demographer who studies China's gender imbalance, Yong Cai, further notes that "men at the bottom of society get left out of the marriage market, and that same pattern is coming to emerge for women at the top of society".[20]
That's not what these "men's content" guys are saying at all; it's not even cited as a related input. They don't completely set aside this potential trend but it's not part of a main cause and effect, in that same form.
Note that there are many more Chinese women than men (related to birth selection by identified gender); that enters in. The proportion for people remaining single implies this is not even close to being a single main cause. The rest of that Wikipedia article unpacks all that.
Reconsidering US culture
What if it's mostly this that is occurring in the US, instead of these individual behavior and perspective themes these social media content producers are proposing? We would expect the main people left out of finding long term partners to be higher status level women, which in the US probably really does translate back to looks more than wealth, or social image tied to family background and such. On the male side we would expect less desirable men to also suffer from this pattern, the "1s, 2s, and 3s," using their terminology and attractiveness ranking system.
Maybe this describes the pattern as well as what all of these content producers are proposing. At the end of this review it seems to need to be shifted a little, because the form is different. The range of women being left out includes more middle-range level of appeal potential partners, and then again more men at the lower level are left taking the hit, but also plenty in the middle.
It wouldn't need to apply only to people in their 30s and 40s, past the threshold of normal earlier life dating and mate selection. The same pattern would occur in everyone's teens and 20s; less attractive men would almost never date, and more attractive women mostly all would, but in the latter case it wouldn't work out as long term relationships for all those women, and also for few of those men.
These are already the basic points that I intended to make. So far I haven't cited any references, any sources describing these two sets of patterns, and of course I can do that. On the Chinese side interpretations can vary, so I've filtered those to a simple summary that rings true to me, with others focusing on other themes (eg. more independent women aren't as appealing within that cultural perspective).
I don't follow so much of this "men's content" that I can say that it's all consistent, but I have watched a good bit of it, and what seems to be 3 or 4 representative examples are all unified in perspective.
To be clear these are not related to the extremist "incel" theme perspective; that's something else. That does seem to translate these personal problems over to misogynist perspective range. More misogynist; these other guys are blaming women for the problem, for sure, often loosely tied back to "feminism," which isn't really one narrow theme, and people can interpret that however they like. A couple of related female content producers overlap with those themes, sharing related but different ideas, but I'm not getting into that here, or how a broad range of online discussion groups relate to all of this. It doesn't develop the core of what I've expressed further but I'll clarify the ideas by citing examples.
Men's content theme summary and citation
A fairly clear summary of the pattern I've described, the common model these guys promote, is presented in a commentary on a video of a woman describing dating problems here, on the Hoe Math" Tik Tok channel.
.jpg)
To be clear I'm not accepting this as a universal, completely accurate model, or accepting these interpretations directly as offered. My point is that there is something to this. In this chart that guy explains how women can "date up" in relation to attractiveness and desirability (wealth + other factors), but then would need to "settle" for a longer term partner on their own level, or close to that. That women describing these same problems in the video he is commenting on really is just framing them in a different way, but seems to be covering the same issues.
Isn't this take misogynistic, since the channel name includes "hoe," and it's a critique of women's dating related self-awareness, putting all of the blame for these issues on women, when men are also involved? Sure, to some extent. That alone doesn't make it wrong, but I think it only partly works anyway. The parts that work better are interesting. It's too much to explore as a tangent here but some of this related framework seems insightful (explained here):
A second related channel is called Better Bachelor, with typical content summarized in this image and caption:
Setting aside if these ideas completely work, or if they are misogynistic (both of which I already addressed), it's interesting that people would choose to watch this kind of content regularly. The main point is pretty simple: women have ruined dating, and all the more so marriage, and many men have turned away from it. Then why watch a video saying that every other day? It's not to get new information, although the graphic summary and breakdowns in the "Hoe Math" reference could work for that, it's to feel a connection to others experiencing the same thing, by way of viewing repetitive content. Eventually a new idea or extra twist would come up, but almost all of the content by all of these guys is nearly identical.
To clarify by adding one more detail, a common theme covered, these guys blame women for over-emphasizing their attractiveness (a little odd, really; that is somewhat universal Western culture now), and not showing modesty in clothing choices, and for sleeping with too many guys, the "body count" theme. Again the standard idea is that the most attractive guys, described as "chad" types, are sleeping with these women, serial dating or just hooking up, and these other guys are feeling left out, not participating in either.
This Better Bachelor content producer, who goes by the nickname Joker, admits that he dated a number of women when younger, and then all this pattern either dawned on him or set in as relevant (excluding him from being selected), once he reached a certain age. Or both, it seems. I don't doubt all that framing; I accept his take on his own background and perspective shift as genuine and accurate.
These two examples don't seem overly conservatively biased, or negative towards females in general, beyond blaming them entirely for a lack of awareness and the existence of these identified patterns (which probably is quite unfair, and is negative). The more desirable guys who sleep with them are related, of course, but for them--these guys offering the analysis--that's a natural choice for those guys, that the women should be avoiding. How? Dressing more conservatively, not sleeping around, and seeking out committed relationships prior to their late 30s. If the same guys saying that dated and slept with lots of women in their 20s it kind of doesn't work. Or I suppose it still could, just in a more limited form.
Rich Cooper works as an example of a more conservative and slightly more negative perspective, covering some of that in discussion in this group discussion video on male and female roles related to hookup culture, who is to blame. That particular video wasn't interesting, so not a great example; the point is to mention someone on a different part of the spectrum. He makes conclusions like "never date a single mother," which can work as a personal preference mandate, but he offers it as good universal advice to all men, which I don't think applies well as a universal directive. The ex-girlfriend that I cared for most was a single mother, and caring for her daughter made it hard to accept the end of that relationship. It was a career focus and a move on her part that broke us up, as much as any one factor did, nothing to do with her status as a mother.
Take-aways
There is no point in considering all this unless someone is a part of those dating concerns. That excludes me, but I still find it an interesting cultural sub-theme.
I think the generalities those content producers identify all work, to a limited extent, but they require some placement. The ideas are generally offered as absolute truths and directives, when really they're just part of a broader range of causes and effects. I think the emphasis on blaming women for problems with men and women dating is essentially wrong; individuals need to sort out those issues as individuals and couples, both men and women.
They seem to never really pull back to the broader scope that the review of Chinese "leftover" single people often does; these broad patterns are going to cause some individuals to remain single, not just related to individual perspective and choices in single cases.
I see this as comparable to a game of musical chairs; plenty of men and women do date and marry in their 20s, and plenty date around in their 20s and 30s instead. By around 40 many seek long term stability and family life, and some people are left out of that pairing up process. Men might date women a little younger, in some cases, but still the same pattern occurs for both in roughly the same age range.
What these guys are missing is that the people not pairing up, equivalent to those left standing in a musical chairs game, relate to a range of individual circumstances, only some of which they identify, but there are surely also general patterns in who is excluded. It doesn't work perfectly well to say that on the men's side those guys will be "1s, 2s, and 3s," and on the women's "9s, and 10s," but something like that could be happening. Or maybe it's not just that?
In the Hoe Math and Better Bachelor videos they thought the woman offering related commentary was attractive (the one cited and shown in an image here), probably a 7 per their judgment (or maybe an 8; she is pretty), so the pattern doesn't seem to completely match in this case. It seems like the form is different in the US problem, an outcome from everyone not trying to find a life-partner in their 20s. As those guys summarize women who are medium level attractive (6-8) can sleep with very attractive men, just not marry them, so on the US culture side that's the range that's experiencing even more problems, an even more vicious scramble "once the music stops" in their late 30s.
I don't know which inputs actually work as the main broad generality. Even following these "men's content" producers analysis men can "marry down" to an extent (again related more to attractiveness than social level as in China, with wealth more a factor for men), so it would seem plenty of the most attractive women would also end up remaining single.
To me all of this works better as food for thought than as a model for how relationships and dating patterns really work out in practice. It would all vary too much by individual experience. People can date whoever they want, and marry a partner for their own reasons, on their own time-table, with or without all this emphasis on appearance and wealth. Common interests, perspective, and values are being set aside too much in all this. But it's still interesting to consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment