A new global gender divide is emerging

while opportunities dwindle

This is the key. [Edit: the competitiveness is a result of the dwindling opportunities, not the direct cause of the fertility issues]

The article used this phrase as it's thesis lynch pin:

The #MeToo movement was the key trigger

But the very telling graphs it included do not agree. #MeToo was 2017, and the graphs clearly illustrate that the divergence began before 2017. Something else was happening well before #MeToo: the dwindling of economic opportunities.

There is an origin for both misogeny and dwindling birth rates, but it's not beginning with the young men nor the women: it's the dwindling of opportunities. The difference in how these groups responded are different because different lies are being told to each:

The young men are being told liberalism and women being free is what has stolen their future. Vote for grifters who promise a handmaid at every hearth.

The young women are being told liberalism has brought them to the meager present and they must defend what little is left. You must vote for your only hope against being chained to an incel's bed.

They told us it was the heretics, then the pegans, then the Jews, then the Blacks, then it was the immigrants, the Yellow Asiatics, the Africans, then it was women, and now they're going to bring the women on board against our trans community. There's always more "others" to throw on the pyre to keep us distracted from who the real kings are.

Meanwhile there's never been any war except class war, and the grifters' bellies are fatter than ever.

I don’t know much about South Korea. Is the attitude similar to that of middle class families in the Bay Area? Like you’re expected to have a house and a high paying job and career growth etc. But buying a house means you need to be a millionaire, getting a high paying job requires you to be 99th percentile lucky with a mix of high percentile smart, and the career growth is another round of luck.

Maybe, but I'm also reminded of a recent article (by Alice Evans, who is quoted in this one) about how Japan and South Korea have lifetime employment and this seems to be a big contributing factor for higher discrimination against women.

I suspect also pauses in scrolling are tracked, so when you pause incredulously for a bit too long on a "why the earth is flat" short that tells the algorithm to keep showing you flat earth and other conspiracies in your feed.

I don't think the algorithm is "confused". I think they know exactly what they are doing.

I have blocked shorts, removed end screens, and only use the subscriptions page on youtube. I also use browser containers so that any youtube links I clock from elsewhere are not associated with my account.

That seems to do a reasonable job off keeping that kind of stuff out of sight and off my feeds.

That's pretty promising to hear that subscriptions to younger digital artists trigger less misogynistic content to be pushed. Be pretty frightening if the reverse were true.

I like FPS games, and unfortunately googling weapons from them ends up putting me on the list that's probably tagged "weird ASMR videos of hot babez firing ARs".

Not really what I am looking for in my feed, and not sure how that even became a thing. Thanks internet :/

The way amplification of disapproval ends up also amplifying the thing being disapproved of is something that’s crossed my mind a lot in recent years and has made me reconsider my sharing habits, especially with regard to online interactions. There’s clearly significant collateral damage involved.

Oh.....my life has not improved by reading that. Yuck. For those wondering, it's juvenile "I am very deep" misogeny nonsense, I wouldn't read it if I could have warned myself.

YouTube pushed a trash movie trailer in my friend's feed today so I ended up watching parts of it -- highly misogynistic and transphobic, and made me sad that it was made, in the name of "can't you take a joke, baby doll, don't be a ---" style of comedy.

I'm glad I usually encounter much better content here and in unusual algorithm feed.

I did explicitly address that.

People, particularly men, have to work longer in order to accumulate the socioeconomic status necessary to be competitive (by cultural expectations) in the partner marketplace. Women are pressured to have the youth and beauty — note that South Korea has the highest rate of plastic surgeries per capita; estimated 1/5 to ⅓ of SK women have gone under the knife — to be competitive (again by cultural expectations) in the marketplace.

It's not a coincidence that in South Korea which has these men-looking-for-youth and women-looking-for-status dynamics in hyperdrive that one in five to three SK women has underwent plastic surgery, which is extreme.

But it's unfair to say that men experience little or no pressure for appearance. The data shows that there is significant pressure: OKCupid's sample size was millions. Interest in men's fashion and fitness is an exploding industry. The internet is crammed with products promising to help men build muscle and become desirable. It's also not a coincidence that one of conspiracist Alex Jones' main revenue streams was the sale of men's supplements.

I think the phenomenon of some men turning to fringe conservative politics is their attempt to find answers and assign blame within a system they struggle to build status.

We're about to ram right into the "I word" here, which always turns comment chains into a shitshow.

But are women "pressured" by male desire in the area of attractiveness? No, not unless she wants to participate in that arena. Which is to say, if she doesn't want to "land a guy", then she's of course free to conduct herself and her personal care habits however she chooses. By definition, what any guy might think of her beauty doesn't matter to her then; she's not interested and doesn't have to invest time or effort in maintaining her beauty like that if she doesn't want to.

If she wants to land a "conventional male partner", then since most men look for certain attractiveness factors, of course she has to play that game to some extent.

But even there, different men find different things attractive; and it's not unheard of for men to gaze into the eyes of their supposedly unattractive female partner with a deep unreserved love those outside the relationship find odd, since by their standards the woman doesn't measure up. Who cares, as long as the people in that relationship are happy with each other?

Beauty, attractiveness, is partially genetic (some folks are born more or less attractive than others), and partially a function of beauty, dress, and attitude (how a person holds and conducts themself).

Which is to say, generally speaking, an average woman can usually boost (or be taught how to boost, from freely available sources like Youtube and fashion magazines and peer consultations and so on) her base attractiveness perception. Hair and makeup, the "right" clothes, how to act and hold herself, and even, yes, beauty surgery can boost her attractiveness.

While a 1 can rarely be made into a 10, it's not at all unreasonable that most women could fairly reliably manage to bring their perceived attractiveness up several points, at least. Few women, few people, are just unable to receive or enjoy any benefit from the myriad of beauty techniques and tactics that can enhance their position on the hypothetical beauty scale in the eyes of those who view them.

Meanwhile, while men can certainly avail themselves of similar techniques, they aren't as common or even approved of (by society, for men) to do. But every time I hear about the subject -- whether it's from actual scientists and sociologists academically studying it, or Youtubers, Tiktockers, peers, forum comments -- sheer attractiveness isn't the lion's share of what women are looking for from their (male) partners. Which is likely one of the reasons it's not an imperative for men like it is for women to focus so heavily on their beauty.

Usually, intelligence, emotional factors, and especially societal status play a large role in how a woman judges a potential male partner. Generally speaking, male attractiveness is more like a deal breaker, maybe a deal sweetener, than it is the primary consideration. Men do often consider their female partner's beauty the main deal breaker. But women don't as often treat their men in the same way; women are often ranking these other factors quite significantly on the scale as they look for a match.

Emotional attitudes are something a man can (usually, not always but probably more often than not) control and learn how to handle. Therapy, psychologists, life experience, and so on can help men with problematic emotional issues manage or eliminate them to improve his scores in this area. It'll probably cost him money though (therapy ain't free), and it'll definitely cost him time. But even a complete asshole can learn to not be one, with enough help and enough time. Which would make him more desirable in this area to the partner he hopes to find.

Intelligence is tricky. Lots of non-academics have wildly differing definitions of "intelligence." The one I see most laypeople using equates really to "education" or "knowledge." What they'll call intelligence, what they'll consider intelligence, often has much more in common with them saying the person in question just knows a lot of stuff. Not that the person necessarily has a fast, creative, perceptive, clever mind that can piece details together and cut to the heart of thought problems.

Men of average intelligence can take advantage of education and its perception on their smarts, using that to work on retaining knowledge and developing skills they can trot out, and be perceived as more intelligent. But a guy without smarts basically is always going to be a somewhat not-smart guy, unlike a not-pretty woman who does have options. And those options are more feasible for her (to boost her attractiveness successfully) than it is for the dumb guy to be perceived as less dumb. His genetic handicap is arguably less likely to be overcome, since stupid is as stupid does is kind of true statement, however un-PC it might be.

Which brings us to social status. Which usually just means money. Which isn't always something a guy has direct control over. Working hard, hustle, really trying, does not necessarily equate to how wealthy a guy is. Some of the hardest working people in western societies are the poorest, because they don't have the opportunities to advance up the financial scale. And money is rarely a thing that can be improved upon successfully over a short timescale (anything less than a year, say).

How much jobs pay isn't in most job seekers' or employees' control, whether or not a boss gives them a raise or better position isn't often in their control. There are a host of factors that go into how much money a person can have gotten their hands on by the end of the year, and while hustle and work ethic (among other factors) can have a positive impact on that equation, they're still not guarantees that the guy (indeed the person) in question managed to lift themselves up along that financial scale.

I would put it like this. How likely is it, if we take a period of time like six months. Where we have a less attractive woman, and a less financially successful guy. And both set themselves a goal of improving upon those deficiencies. After that half year, is it the surer, better, more likely bet that the woman managed to improve her makeup and clothes, her attitude and poise, to come across as more attractive; or the that the guy was able to successfully find a better job, or successfully start a well paying business?

One of those goals is more under the control, less prone to luck and factors outside his or her control, than the other. A woman seeking to be "more beautiful" has less luck and less frustration inevitably mixed into the equation. It's not the snap of fingers, the wave of a magic wand, for an "ugly" woman to become "less ugly", but I think it's entirely fair to say that makeup and clothes, how to position and hold herself physically, are things she can directly control. Things she doesn't have to rely upon others to help her to obtain.

Meanwhile, the guy decides "I want to make more money." And he's dependent on the boss hiring him, promoting him. He has to go looking for the opportunity, find it, and then somehow secure it. Most of the critical succeed/fail steps along the way aren't directly under his control. He can go to school, or get training, but that doesn't guarantee he'll get a better job tied to them. And takes time. He can pound the pavement, blanket the town with resumes and applications, but that doesn't guarantee he'll get an offer. And takes time. And there's no assurance the offers which do come work out. Which would waste time.

Neither task (becoming more attractive or becoming more financially successful) is impossible. But one is more directly under that person's control than the other, on average, when considering what's likely to happen if we repeat the comparison with new pairings. I feel it's quite fair to say women have more direct control over their "dating success" than men, in western societies, since more of the factors men want from women are directly under the woman's control. And fewer of the factors women want from men are directly under the man's control.

Especially if we consider young women vs young men. What there is of the factors women want from men, that a man can address and work to improve, usually can't be significantly altered in a short period of time. Most careers, most life success, education to appear smarter, learning emotional stability, and so on, none of that is necessarily something that can reliably be learned or improved quickly. It often takes quite a bit of time for the man to succeed at, so he'll then be more desirable to a woman.

There are reasons for systematic male frustration. The stat listed earlier in this thread:

In 2021, the Korea Times reported that census data showing that 50.8% of men and 33.6% of women in their 30s are single. That's a big discrepancy despite South Korea's gender ratio being balanced (virtually 1:1), so that means women partner with older men who are usually more financially established.

That's a prime example of this phenomena. Women are going outside their age cohort. Why? Because it's more likely an older man has those factors the woman considers desirable.

An older man is more likely to be further along in his career, more likely to have managed to find a well paying job, to have found promotions, to have advanced along his career track(s) financially. That older guy is more likely to have identified and addressed any emotional issues. Have practiced and developed his confidence and relaxed approach to life. He's more likely to be educated, or have other skills and knowledge, that allows him to come across as more intelligent. He's even more likely to have learned and practiced how to make himself measure up to female standards of male beauty.

Which all takes time. Something an older man is more likely to have invested than a younger man. And even if the younger man wants to, is, investing in the same way; investment takes time. A guy ten or twenty years his senior started sooner and is more likely to have successfully achieved the goal than the younger guy.

These are all things women find attractive in a male partner. They're more likely, rather than less, to find a man to be a good match for her if he has financial security, emotional stability, and so on.

Is it really so tough to maybe see, to "get", why men can be ... what's a word ... irritated, confused, frustrated, by this sort of thing? Not every man wants to wait all through his 20s, even all through his 30s, to finally have climbed a career ladder to be able to find himself in a life situation he very much wants; with a female partner.

It's not "gross", or creepy. Men like women, just like women like men. Well, hetro men and women like each other. Homosexual dating is probably out of scope for this discussion. Regardless, it's not wrong for an adult man to be dating and looking and hoping to find himself in an ongoing secure relationship with a receptive woman he finds desirable. Which is another problem; it's not exactly uncommon for (some) women to seem to want to shame men for liking woman, for wanting to find a woman to be with.

I'm not talking about asshole men. Or actual creepy losers. Just ordinary, average guys, who have as one of their primary goals as the weeks and months of their life go by to be "land myself in a relationship with a woman." There's nothing wrong with that. The guy's not creepy to want to have a willing woman in his life. We're not talking about a guy who does evil or criminal or questionable stuff; just a guy, who wants to date and find a woman, but keeps losing out to older guys. Or richer guys. Who keeps getting turned down when a woman finds out he doesn't have a great job, a nice car, a comfortable house.

It's understandable that guys, when they see that sort of thing becoming a pattern, don't exactly like it. I'm not saying they become evil, or creepy, or problematic; just that they (again) get turned down, and later see or find out the woman they inquired about has started dating an older, richer guy ... it's understandable the guys losing out are less than thrilled with that reoccurring outcome.

That "I word" I mentioned, yes a lot of guys dig too deeply into their rejection, into their negative reaction at a lack of success in this area. It's true there are entities and so forth in modern society that are specifically looking to sweep such frustrated, confused, rejected men up to use or abuse them in certain ways. And that's not a good thing, for the men in question or society at large.

But we're talking about biological impulses here. Humans have relationship (and sexual) impulses. It drives them to seek out compatible partners. When they want one, but consistently can't find one, they're going to be less than happy about it. Everyone reacts that way, even women. Except women mostly just have the one area to focus on; beauty.

Women often love to make jokes about how shallow men are, but it does work to the advantage of women in this area. Men like attractive women. And no one's ugly to everyone.

Financial pressure isn't just solely financial pressure for guys. Especially those guys. When they want a woman in their lives, and it's pretty easy to see they'd be much more likely to find one successfully if they could have a comfortable bank account to woo her with ... is it all that confusing to understand why a guy who's not having dating success, because of his lack of job/career success, gets so frustrated? He's failing in life, by his standards and even society's, and so much of what he might be able to do to change that failure isn't under his control.

Just one more way the economy and wealth inequality is impacting society negatively. It's not just that people are poorer, less food secure, less likely to have reliable housing options. Poorer people (especially men) are less likely to have reliable relationships they desire available to them, which is a whole separate source of stress and distraction and unhappiness that adds to that of the whole being poor stress.

Dating and relationships are scary for everyone, men and women. No one's saying they aren't. But for most guys, a lot of the factors in play aren't things they can successfully address over a timescale involving a year, even two years. And a lot of guys would rather not be alone until they're in their 40s and (presumably) settled comfortably into a secure and well paid career.

As Bon Jovi sang, "We're halfway there, living on a prayer. Take my hand, we'll make it I swear." Except Tommy and Gina had each other to make it there with.

Who thinks Tommy was more stressed, or less, over being poor in that situation? Would he be more, or less stressed if Gina left him? The exact same question goes the exact same way for Gina too; if she's poor and alone, is she more or less likely to be handling it better, than if she has Tommy (or some other relationship partner) to share her circumstances with?

If Gina and Tommy split up, who do we think is more likely to "move on" and find themselves a new relationship first? The out of work Tommy, or Gina? We don't know how beautiful Gina is, but makeup is cheap. Everyone has a phone in their pocket. Youtube is full of beauty tutorials. Thrift stores full of clothes are everywhere.

Gina could find a shitty job and probably within a few weeks be able to afford makeup and clothes if she needs them. She heads out to a club, a bar, a social gathering, and starts scoping the scene. Oh look, it's Timmy. Timmy still has his union job, unlike Tommy. Timmy's six string ain't in hock. Timmy ain't down on his luck, and Timmy's times aren't so tough.

Timmy probably looks pretty good to Gina. Better than Tommy anyway.

Where's that leave Tommy? Living on a prayer.

South Korea was arguably more misogynistic in the past, as were many other countries that are currently experiencing issues with decreasing birth and marriage rates. We're seeing in these countries that more women's rights (a good thing) and increased female labor participation (also a good thing), which we altogether consider as indicators of decreasing societal misogyny, are coinciding with decreasing birth and marriage rates.

In contrast, the most misogynistic countries with the weakest rights for women have the highest birth and marriage rates: Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

If misogyny were the primary driver, then we should see the opposite.

So some other forces must be at play.

Yuck.

Do they still require photographs with job resumes or is that changed now?