14% is a lower bound. I suspect if you include studies that can't be replicated it's well over 50%. And yes with that much garbage the public should dismiss all new published scientific findings. Modern scientific publishing has been gamed it's nearly useless for learning anything directly because you can't trust it. Some fields more than others of course, but it's all bad. Yes this includes tier 1 journals.
This has always been true? The vast majority of scurvy research was unreplicatable bullshit, and for hundreds of years if you “Trusted the Science(TM)” on scurvy, you were liable to die horribly on long ocean voyages. Mind you, if you didn’t Trust the Science you’d die just the same.
Then, someone worked out a theory and replicable experiment (humans and guinea pigs are the only mammals that die horribly when not fed vitamin C) and with a replicable experiment in hand, you could use little s science and now no one gets scurvy, trust not required.
You know I see these FUD articles every so often, there's some truth to it, but more interesting to me is the timing. BTC is probably going to see lower prices before the post-halving run up. This makes me think it's more likely part of an effort to get BTC at a discount then it is an organic event.
That might work for a few years, but if all institutions did that it would collapse the whole system. A university degree is for jobs why would you think otherwise?
1) Women don't need men in modern society. They would likely stay married longer and be more picky about the type of man to bread with if they were stuck with him forever. The benefit is that women don't get stuck in abusive relationships.
2) Modern dating is turning us into polygamists. Women will pursue the top 10% (or so) of men and those men have little incentive to get married. There is a financial penalty to having children, but much less than getting married and having children. Of course this leads to single mothers with, at best, part time fathers.
These points are laid out as if they're clearly true but I'm not sure that's the case. It reduces people to rational actors and assumes they're all optimizing for certain conditions but both of those assumptions are clearly false to me. In any case, I'd like to hear all this talk about women from the perspective of a woman.
It is clearly stated that the points are something to consider, not the they are strictly true. Is there something of value that you are trying to add here?
Mostly it's meant as a reminder to anyone reading the parent comment to think critically instead of just taking the claims at face value, as I often tend to forget to do that myself.
1) a big benefit is still either a) the option to have a full time parent or 2) the option to have double income. Both are becoming less and less of an option as housing prices go out of control in the U.S. (the subject of this article's sources)
it doesn't necessarily mean women need men, but people in general are starting to require some partner or otherwise roomate to make ends meet. with the context of a kid, that overwhelmingly implies a partner.
2) if only. it's more like casual sex in general is more popular. Not necessarily a bad thing, but if less people are meeting romantically and are getting their sexual gratification casually, you see how this can lead to less stable relationships (if they form at all).
even in an unofficial capacity, polygamy may be able to solve quite a few problems. But I'm not sure if that sentiment will shift in my lifetime, at least in the U.S.
This is an oft repeated trope that flies in the face of evolutionary history [1]. Because it doesn't actually work, I think that it reflects socioeconomic class demarcations -- that is, the upper class and the lower classes take different strategies.
Peer reviewed citations or we'll assume that your data is anecdotal. And skewed from a sub-population that is interested in data and sex rather than mating and marriage. The platforms that provide matches aren't very motivated to find perfect matches that lead to marriages. They haven't yet expanded into the marriage industry.
Women raising children alone may be due to a large number of factors and grouping them into "women don't need men, they just need sperm" is missing the support (sometimes) available from their male partner.
I need peer reviewed data to suggest that women want to seek the best mate possible? In the modern context 'the best' doesn't include as much weight on providing food and shelter.
Because of (2): I am less 'patriotic' and will put myself above "my nation" because of what online dating has shown regarding male attraction.
I have no skin in this game in any way that would have me contributing to society; and, from twenty years of experience being told repeatedly I am not good enough, I will act completely selfishly. It is my duty, and the duties of other "leftover men" like me, to minimize any sort of sense of civic duty, contribution, and taxation, and to keep an eye out for a much better deal (even if it's in a foreign country). We must not let The State turn us into cucks: let the nation of single mothers sink or swim on its own without us!
Wow. While women may not "need" men, men live longer when they are in a healthy long term relationship. Typically this is heterosexual marriage, but if you can find a buddy who will do the stuff that a wife will do when your body decays, good for you.
My mom outlived my father by a few years. My grandmothers both outlived their husbands. This is well known pattern.
"men going their own way" may lead to more lonely, sick, unhappy men.
This is exactly why a marriage norm exists. You can't have large societies with a Signiant number of men not invested in it's future. They tend to find destructive ways to use their energy.
Sure women probably hunted, but claiming there is no evidence for a "sex-based division of labor" is hogwash. Some hunted the same game as men, some probably other prey. Some probably gathered food depending on their child status and physical capabilities. The article focuses much on the advantages women are provided due to estrogen. Sure for some activities (like child rearing) and general health the female hormones make sense. But, I have yet to see any athlete in any sport (including ultra marathon) taking estrogen for an advantage. Willing to be proven wrong.
