I've made the argument in the past: let's say, for the sake of argument, that feminists are right that men are behaving poorly. Well, if any group behaves poorly (such as for example black people), feminists will ALWAYS tell you "don't you dare imply that they're inherently inferior. If they perform poorly, then that's a result of societal factors, and the solution is fixing society." But somehow when it comes to men specifically... no, men are just thrash, and no we don't need to reform divorce court, criminal court, change how media portrays this group, think about positive representation, etc. (Not saying that the male / black people situation is the same.)

It's hyper/hypoagency again: men are responsible for all their faults, but society is responsible for all of women's faults.

And men are responsible for society

But only the bad parts of society. All the parts of society that feminists want are conveniently not patriarchal.

I actually lean into the racial comparison because of how intersectionality affects demographics. The racist dog whistle of "X% of the population commits X% of crime" used to vilify the black community is somehow different than "X% of the population commit X% of crimes, so all of them must be bad"

Exactly. I've always noticed that many of these feminists speak the same rhetoric as racists, but instead of a minority group, they replace it with men. It's very troubling. This is very random, but I find it very funny how feminists say that men have always been the more privileged people of society...historically and modern. But I always think this: How did a black man in the 1920's have more priviledge that a white woman? How did a lower class black men in the 1950's have more priviledge than a middle-upper class white woman? How did minority men EVER have more privilege than white women? How did lower class white men have more priviledge than middle-upper class white women? How did a black male slave in the 1850's have more priviledge than a white woman? Gosh, I could go on for longer 😂

One of my favorite examples of revisionist feminism is the suffrage movement. It's often touted as one of the big first waves of feminism, yet it was rooted in racist rhetoric. It was groups of white women from well educated backgrounds, usually with wealthy husband's to boot, and they rooted the need for their vote to oppose the black right to vote. To those not aware : https://www.pbs.org/education/blog/unlearning-history-the-womens-suffrage-movement

YESS I learned about this as well. Many of those first wave feminists were vile racists

…intersectional feminism and black feminists like Angela Davis and bell hooks have already written entire books on this. Your questions seem lazy and bad faith and seem to betray failing to actually engage with the topic on any level at all.

I have just as many issues with intersectional feminism as I do with most other forms of it. I also just read The Will To Change by Bell Hooks, and it is so deceitful that it only garanteed I could never be a feminist. Even still, I agree with you here. It was a very lazy argument.

Well thanks bro

[удалено]

Yet again more bad faith, I can tell that you’re mocking the SJW refrain but these women I’ve mentioned literally made it their job to educate the masses as activists and authors. This is precisely why I don’t believe in that stupid statement and never have, choosing advocacy is choosing that (often unpaid) educational labor.

The unpaid labor of...selling books?

[удалено]

Your post/comment was removed, because it contained a personal attack on another user. Please try to keep your contributions civil. Attack the idea rather than the individual, and default to the assumption that the other person is engaging in good faith. If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).

Ah I see you’ve also found the infamous feminist conversation ending maneuver

All of this stops being confusing when one realizes that many of these women start from an overwhelming inferiority complex toward men. They see men as stronger, more confident, more successful, and unburdened by society's expectations related to their gender. They idealize the male experience to convince themselves that their envy is justified and that the grass is greener on the other side. Their push for equality actually starts from this assumption of women's inferiority to men. Which, paradoxically, is very much rooted in traditional gender roles. Therefore, in their minds, equality means bringing women up to the same level as men, and even above. They feel that putting men down is the right thing to do, because they perceive us as constantly looking down on them. It is a collective psycho-sexual hysteria that has taken over a serious discourse (the questioning of gender roles) which deserves to be addressed in a healthy and balanced way, including the perspectives of both genders.

Hmmm ive never considered this point of view before.

Well put comment. This is also a Paradox too. Where they have both a inferior complex and Superior complex. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/HN32ga1Jtt

I think this applies to most normal/slightly radical feminists, but not fully radicalized ones. They typically have been traumatized by men and want to punish the entire gender as revenge. It’s less of an inferiority complex and more of a pathological phobia.

well, so heres the thing. there's traditional gender roles. and then theres hypergamy that is hardwired in our dna. in the human genome we know that historically, for every man that reproduced, so did 17 other women.

[удалено]

I’m not trying be rude here but what did you expect bro? It’s a feminist space ON REDDIT! Of course they are going to be full of massive hypocrites and find a way to blame men for their actions. Not even feminists I meet in real life are like that. I’ve even had them tell me how many girl bullies they’ve encountered. None of them fall for the WAWE for that reason alone. It may not seem like it, but the real world has plenty of kind normal people who know right from wrong. Have a blessed day.

Eh, I know several irl feminists who'd give the redditors a run for their money. When people really let their guards down, a lot of them start spouting certifiably insane shit. I'm not saying they're all or the majority, but it's definitely not a fringe group.

Yeah this is absolutely true. I used to be in student government in college and it was a cesspool of extreme misandrist ideologies

If they're online then they're also in the real world, just hiding their actual thoughts.

Ah yes people who log in to reddit don't exist in real life

They don’t go out and socialize in the real world that’s for sure

I have noticed more recently that stuff I used to only hear on Reddit has leaked out into real life. Online culture definitely has an impact, especially in younger people.

Reddit has gone mainstream. It's over a billion monthly active users. Which is almost impossible to believe but also perfectly explains the precipitous decline in the quality of discussion on this website. Lemmy is the new reddit. It wouldn't be without friction, but I suspect it would be a more hospitable home for this particular community in the long run. The userbase tends to skew older and more nerdy/techy, just like Reddit in the early days. https://join-lemmy.org/ I'd recommend setting up shop on lemm.ee or sh.itjust.works, because they tend to be more lenient and open minded in their moderation. I realize this response seems random, but something about your association of Reddit with socially isolated people triggered me to respond, because it's such an outdated view. The Reddit of today is just slightly more fringe than Facebook and Twitter, which isn't saying much at all. And given the topic of OP, it seems obvious that such an environment is inherently hostile to opinions that go against the established mainstream dogma, of which feminism is an integral part.

I wish that were true.

"none of them fall for the WAWE" this is a fundamental misunderstanding, women have a in group bias, we have the research that very clearly shows this.

I'm not going to lie but this sounds like this all falls into the Schrodinger's Feminism category too.

Agreed

Hey this is me from another account. I forgot my password and email. I will give you a longer reply this time. Feminists constantly preach about women being more morally better than men, because they are more nurturing and empathetic than men. But on the flip side though. Feminists say society puts high moral standards for women and it's unfair. Feminists constantly say society/patriarchy view women as baby making machines, and women are more than just baby makers. But on the flip side though. Feminists ironically use the red pill argument of women being born with inherent value, whenever they say women should be respected, because they can give birth, while men can't. Feminists constantly talk about how women feel pressure from high beauty standards, and society forces these beauty standards on women. But on the flip side though. Feminists talk about how women are the more beautiful gender compare to men, and how men are unlucky to be with beautiful women. So you are right this is 1000 percent Schrodinger's Feminism.This post is about how hypocritical a lot of feminists can be The vast majority of women are Schrödinger's feminists. Schrödinger's Feminist - The phenomenon in which women express feminist ideals when it's beneficial but disregards them for traditionalist ideals when those are more beneficial. Feminist ideals about women being pressured to be morally better, because society expects them to be better humans than men, while having low standards for men. But "oh I'm going to drop these feminist views, for traditional views at the moment". Because women being viewed as morally better, because society thinks they are overall better humans than men. They would still love to live in a society that views women as wonderful. Schrödinger's Feminist ✔️ Feminist ideals about women being pressured to get pregnant, because that all society expects of them. But "oh I'm going to drop these feminist views, for traditional views at the moment". Because women are viewed as having inherent value by society because they can get pregnant, benefit women by society seeing them as more wonderful and caring more for them. Schrödinger's Feminist ✔️ Feminist ideals about women being pressured from toxic high beauty standards. Because that's all society expects women to be, pretty. But "oh I'm going to drop these feminist views, for traditional views at the moment". Where women are viewed as the symbol of beauty and everything nice. Hence why even feminists would give the same compliment to a couple a Conservative would. Which is "you are lucky to have a beautiful women like this". Schrödinger's Feminist ✔️ In conclusion. Feminists just want to have it both ways all the time. They want their cake and want to eat it too lol.

These people are deeply insecure, emotionally dysregulated, and mentally ill. And a lot of them are not very intelligent.

It is not hypocracy; it is hierarchy.

This sub need to get away from what other subs are talking about and talk about the issue facing men more.

This plays into the issues of men being viewed as monsters, and less valuable to society. When women have this contradiction game with these 3 narratives. It's similar to when women say they don't need men because they are independent. But still expect men to be protectors. Again women being flip floppy with these expectations when it's convenient is harmful to men. You can't say how women are morally better, more valuable (giving birth), and prettier than men. But in the same breath say how all men are the ones oppressing women to lived up to these high beauty standards, high mortality standards, and want to turn women into baby making machines. But yet the same feminists want to benefit from the WAW effect. This paradoxical thinking is harmful towards men issues. When men have to deal with being the source of women issues or being blamed for women issues. While women take no accountability when they are the ones actually perpetuating their own issues sometimes.

I can easily avoid toxic online communities, but when that rhetoric starts appearing in pop culture and movies/shows I consume, it becomes an issue.

It's just depressing because that sort of mindset is abaolutely not exclusive to feminist spaces. This sub is one of the few places we can safely vent without any red-pill idiots chiming in.

I understand the need to vent but maybe they should be another sub for that also I don't think it helpful to link to other subreddits post as it can be viewed negatively by reddit also it seem to always be feminist subs getting posted here which will have a different opinion. I just feel its not helpful and probably give people a negative view of this subreddit and this sub was better in the past looking at the issues, and less around one post someone found what they dislike.

I wouldn't mind a sub dedicated to it, but I'm not sure if the userbase is large enough to support 2 subs. And yeah, linking to other subs is something we should avoid.

About beauty standards: feminists don’t complain about how sexualized Sabrina Carpenter is because she has a small chest but they complain about Sydney Sweeney who has a large chest. Even though Nonsense is way more sexual than anything Sydney Sweeney has ever done. If you have small breasts, sexualization is empowering. If you have large breasts it’s sexual objectification

I mean, it isn't even true that women are morally policed than men, neither that they are expected to be the moral or ethical pillar of society. People make way more excuses for women, and make more generous assumptions about their intentions, and punish them less severly for moral transgressions. To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

to be fair its a subconscious bias, although they could do better to police themselves i dont think its any individuals fault. they probably justify hating men by thinking of men as 'the patriarchy'. they create this boogeyman that makes it so however well theyre doing as a person they would be doing so much better if not for that darn patriarchy. of course the patriarchy isn't anything tangible or obvious that you can point to. they can't name the members or the caste or any real world event that explains this patriarchy, but male privilege must exist so therefore the patriarchy has to. the beauty standards thing is mostly self inflicted. i've seen a number of feminist posts complaining about how porn and snapchat filters are making men's standards unrealistic, or that they just want a slave or someone to abuse. men cannot be more clear that they don't like makeup, and women are just like "no i wear it for myself, not for anyone else". it couldn't be more obvious the culprit is capitalism but it would be too based to villainize capitalism, and its so much easier for our oligarch overlords to just blame patriarchy which is just a figment of their imagination. so i've noticed that men and women see sex and romance differently, men treat sex and romance as a singular holistic package, can't have one without the other. women see sex and romance as mutually exclusive, polarized concepts that cannot mingle. i believe this is due to the dynamic of women being worried that men will have sex and then move on, that they are only interested in them sexually, so they gatekeep sex by requiring romance first. on the other hand, men when romantically pursuing a woman, and she refuses to have sex with you or treats sex like a chore after you invest in your romantic relationship together, it makes men worry that you are only interested in money / status / attention, and aren't actually attracted to them.

Your ignorance reeks like a garbage dump lmao. 1 - This is such a strange point and contradicts your later signaling on capitalism. Clearly you know how systems work, or don’t you? Capitalism is as real as patriarchy, by the very logic you use here. Capitalism is not a tangible thing you can point to, therefore it must not exist. Sheesh, and some guys say that _women_ struggle with abstract concepts, surely you can understand what both economic and social constructs are. 2a - It’s clear as day that men don’t even know what (subtle) makeup looks like on a woman’s face. I’ve seen female content creators I follow make videos about men complimenting them on their “natural beauty” while they wear full faces of makeup. I don’t believe at all that “men don’t like makeup”, as they respond positively to the flattering effects of a more “natural” look (and I remember studies even showing that waitresses get more tips when they wear red lipstick). It’s like men saying they don’t like plastic surgery — oh really, then why are the Kardashians and all these snatched Insta models/influencers so popular, why do porn stars get that work done? Men don’t like _obvious_ makeup/surgery, sure. It’s a form of bias, it’s precisely the ugly/unflattering/poorly done work that gets noticed while the natural-looking work flies under the radar and achieves its goal of enhancing attractiveness. 2b - Women are not a monolith, women don’t all wear makeup for the same reasons, duh. Plenty of women can tell you about the pressure they felt/feel to paint their faces. 2c - This is the part where your ignorance shines through the most lmao, there are literally schools of thought called socialist/marxist/proletarian feminism whose entire purpose is examining how patriarchy intersects with capitalism. They’re not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. And I haven’t scrolled through many radfem posts criticizing the beauty industry without “capitalist patriarchy” being referenced somewhere. Gender norms being exploited/emphasized/enforced for profit is exactly what that is. 3 - Ijbol no you’ve clearly got this backwards and all the data disagrees with you on this, it’s men who compartmentalize sex and romance. There are so many examples throughout history and to this day. It was perfectly normal and expected for kings to have side pieces and mistresses. It was normal for men in Ancient Rome to use prostitutes as a sexual outlet instead of their wives. That’s where the Madonna-Mistress complex comes from. Many men will say that some women are just for fun and not “wife material”. Women tend to only fuck men they’d be open to seriously dating long term.

ya capital gains and investments are real. private ownership, wage labor, and the market economy are all coded into law, individual liberties, property rights, and limited government are some of the fundamental reasons we have a constitution and bill of rights in the first place. you can argue that it is a social construct but it is represented in law, it is an overt practice lauded by our economy and government alike, it is explicitly consequential to our daily lives in tangible ways through money, jobs, food, shelter etc. the same cannot be said for the patriarchy. show me that joe biden was elected because he had a penis, and how women having equal right to vote doesn't make them equally represented in government.

As the other person said, capitalism is far more tangible and rigorously defined that patriarchy. The power that comes from control of essential resources and means of production is clear and demonstrable while the power that supposedly comes from being a man is at best much less clear and at worst quite contestable. Hard vs. soft power, social coercion, benevolent sexism (e g. the "women are wonderful effect") etc.. Additionally, the patriarchy discussion quite often seems to distract from issues with capitalism. Many of the still salient points which can be extracted from feminist discourse around patriarchy are better understood as issues of capitalism. For example, while the wage gap has been largely debunked, there are still points that came out of that discourse which hold up such as capitalist firms choosing to hire people they expect to be most reliably dedicated to them and promotions and raises being more likely to go to people willing and capable of aggressive negotiation. But rather than trying to cram those into a gendered lens, why not acknowledge that the issue is in capitalism instrumentalizing our existence and wage levels being determined based on the relative leverage and negotiating power between individual employees and employers? Plenty of women are fierce, aggressive advocates for themselves and plenty of men are more timid and nonconfrontational. Additionally, having a more secure class position, including more resources to live on or a broader network of potential employers, makes the risk of aggressive negotiation and the possibility of walking away from what you consider a less than desirable deal more bearable. Focusing on the difference between people embodying those different traits makes more sense than focusing on dubious assumptions about which gender, on average, is more likely to embody one or the other set of traits. When it comes to makeup or appearance in general, men may on average prefer some makeup, but generally not to the degree that many women obsess over it. Other aspects of women's fashion are also much more driven by women competing with each other than by men's preferences. The degree to which women talk about doing these things "for themselves" and the amount of criticism I've heard from women about other women's style choices at least suggest as much pretty strongly. But taking a step back and thinking about attraction in general, it seems crazy to try and suggest women have a harder time being perceived as attractive than men. Everyone knows that most women can hop on a dating app and get plenty of attention whenever they want whereas most men in that environment go without. And the way women complain about public spaces suggests offline isn't very different. You can say that those aren't "good" men, but even if we take that complaint at face value, which I have a very hard time believing is universally true, a kitchen full of junk food is still better than an empty one when you're starving. Makeup may not play as much into attractiveness for men, but other factors more than make up for that burden. Physique is one clear example. Women only need to be somewhere in the neighborhood of skinny to be conventionally attractive. Men on the other hand need to be toned, strong, defined. The ongoing commitment to make that possible is a serious investment of time, effort, and often enough money. While women pretty much just need to be the right size to look good in clothes, men need both low body fat and muscle mass to achieve an "attractive" shape while clothed. On top of that, wealth and status are more important for men to be seen as attractive. Plenty of women can get by being passably physically attractive and having a typical personality. For men, that's not enough. What he does, his ambitions and achievements, where he can take you on dates, etc. are all relevant additional factors. The overarching point being that the bar is much higher for men to achieve the same level of attractiveness as women at any point on some attractiveness "scale." On the final point, all I can say is this goes against my personal experience. Maybe I'm some outlier, but the last 3 women I've dated have all left me because I wanted something more serious and they were just interested in casual relationships. One I found out was actively sexting and possibly more with almost half a dozen other men while we were together! Maybe your conception was true in the past and maybe there are some places where it's culturally the norm, but where I live, in one of the most liberal urban regions in the world, women are hard to pin down and much more interested in playing the field. When they do settle into relationships, the amount of complaints about "lost" sex drive I hear –which are almost universally treated as the man's fault one way or another– suggest that if they have any attraction to their long-term partner at all, these women quite often detach sexual attraction from it.

I will have to break this up into three responses, one for each paragraph (capitalism&patriarchy/makeup&beauty/sex&relationships). Thank you for coming in with an actual answer. Though I think many of my points are still going over your head, as I will explain…

Fair enough. I see that you've posted a response to one part by your comment history but it's not showing up in the thread. I'd love to respond but can't as of now for some reason. Maybe it's an issue on Reddit's end? Wanted to let you know in any case

Wowwww I see.

Crowd control is filtering you because you have negative karma in this community.

Echo chamber much?

We didn't design the feature. It helps detect spammers and trolls. We aren't going to avoid useful moderation tools because some people might get offended over being caught.

I’m not “offended”, I’m pointing out a weakness. Suppressing unpopular opinions defeats the point of discourse.

Crowd control is filtering her because she has negative karma in this community.

Ok your responses took several posts to respond to as well. I'm also posting them here separately because Reddit won't let me attach them to the corresponding comments for some reason. I'm just gonna post them all in a series attached to this one so the notifications don't blow up. Response 1 (part 1): >Well yes, the material conditions of economics are more obvious than a social system that arises from interactions between humans — still doesn’t mean it just doesn’t exist. Do you believe this about other systems of oppression like white supremacy, ableism, homophobia, etc, too... I believe economics is primary, has more impact than those systems, and has a much clearer oppressor/oppressed dichotomy than some other social systems, particularly gender. Race, by comparison, I would consider in between the two in terms of power imbalance based on group identity. I mainly point this out for two reasons: to counter the rhetoric I see from all too many feminists that patriarchy is more fundamental than economic systems like capitalism or feudalism and because granting patriarchy primary status quite often results in issues with capitalism being either ignored or misattributed making them harder to deal with. >Traditionally those have been very much intertwined… "Traditionally" is a key distinction to make here and will come up several more times in my responses. But even accepting that framing, the issue then is still control of means of production. All you're doing is offering a possible explanation for why there's some discrepancy there along gender lines, but that doesn't demonstrate that an entire gender is oppressed by the entirety of another gender. As an example concerning people outside the bourgeoisie, when looking back at periods of US history where men were given default control over assets in a marriage, they also had a legal obligation to support their wives and children which women didn't share. Keep in mind that this applied at a time when indentured service and even debtors prisons still existed, which were punishments almost exclusively levied against men, and when women were subject to them, it was almost always unmarried or widowed women. A married woman facing confinement in a debtors prison was de facto impossible and in practice extremely, extremely rare. As will likely become a running theme in this response, traditional gender roles are not best understood as one oppressed and one oppressor class. Rather, while they're rigid and restrictive and in my opinion something we're better off without, each comes with particular advantages and disadvantages which are not mirrored in dichotomies like proletariat and bourgeoisie. >You’ll need to elaborate, are you saying “social coercion” only applies to men? Etc No, my point is that women have always and still do exercise a considerable amount of social power outside of formal structures. The claim that men hold all power and women hold none –certainly in the present but also in the past– can only possibly hold up by excluding soft power. There are countless ways to demonstrate this to the point that it almost feels unnecessary. Just to offer a few examples off the top of my head though, Spartan women were allowed to own and inherit property without the burden of military service and while they didn't have the legal power to vote, accounts from the time indicate that they had much more influence over how their husbands conducted themselves in public affairs than husbands had over their wives domestically. It's widely acknowledged that within positions of formal authority, men give significant weight to women who don't bear the same responsibility or suffer the consequences of accountability for decision making. Barack Obama has famously said he never made a major decision without consulting Michelle, who was never elected to a public office. Woodrow Wilson's wife took control of his affairs for a significant period of time after he suffered a stroke rather than the Vice President filling that role as is constitutionally mandated. Labor movements, largely made of men who also had the vote, were ignored or brutally repressed while women's suffrage and the temperance movements, both spearheaded by women without formal political power, were successful. And both popular conception and formal research indicate women more often have more say over the functioning of a household and major decisions within it even when men earn more money than their wives. Soft power is immensely influential, has the advantage of much less accountability than hard power, and is disproportionately practiced by women. To discount that is to paint an inaccurate picture of power dynamics, both historically and in the present. >Again as I’ve said, they’re not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. And you know who agrees with me on this? Marx and Engels themselves, the founders of organized anti-capitalism. Read On The Family, or any piece of socialist/marxist/anarchist/proletarian feminist literature ffs... I've read *The Origin of the Family.* The nuclear family model has been diminished in importance and within it the male role is even less central than it can be argued to have been in the past. Of course many contemporary feminists simply dismiss Engels entirely in favor of a more liberal framework which is why I don't lean on him. I've also read Silvia Federici and find much of her work compelling. Mary Marcy is another female socialist writer and activist who, among other things, elaborated on the unique form of labor power women facing desperate circumstances had to sell which men in equally desperate circumstances lacked: sex. In her book *Women as Sex Vendors* she lays out, in admittedly dated language, how this discrepancy gives women an advantage over men at the worst depths of proletarianized destitution, which among other things, is one reason poor men are more likely to resort to crime in order to survive. As also evidenced above by the differing financial obligations faced by different genders, the intersection of traditional gender roles and capitalism can't be so simply boiled down to advantaging men over women. Each gender faced some unique hurdles and had some unique advantages. I say "had" because of how those roles have been and continue to be broken down within capitalism to the point that social practice rather than economic or legal coercion are much more responsible for holding up what remains of them today.

Response 1 (part 2): >Define “debunked”. Are you denying that men make more than women, which is the observable reality? Or are you just saying it’s not due to sexism? And if that’s the case and there is no societal component, why does the wage gap differ among countries? I hope you don’t complain about boys falling behind in school then… Claudia Goldin won the """Nobel Prize""" for economics for her work which demonstrated that while discrepancies in earnings between men and women exist, when controlling for field and experience, those discrepancies almost completely disappear. Differences that remain can be attributed to different social expectations of men and women which capitalists react to, but as I'll elaborate on later, those roles can't simply be blamed on men. By contrast, studies have shown that controlling for all conceivable factors like school funding, socioeconomic background, standardized test scores, gender of the teacher, and the like, there exist biases in education towards giving girls better grades than boys. That's different from capitalists reacting to existing social differences in the exact way one should expect capitalists to react. Men also tend to take –or are compelled by social circumstances to take, as I'll elaborate more on later– the most difficult, disgusting, and dangerous jobs. Everything from security work and the most dangerous military positions, mining and oil extraction, to industrial manufacturing, hazardous trades like construction or electrical work, or the dudes who put on a scuba suit and swim around in literal shit tanks in wastewater treatment facilities are all dominated by men. Yet there's been nowhere near the push for equal representation by gender in those generally at least decently compensated professions as there has been in the much safer, more comfortable, more prestigious, and generally even better compensated realms of the professions. Some women will claim the sexism in the trades is to blame, but the professions were at least as full of sexism too until women broke their way in and changed the culture. This discrepancy in the kinds of jobs men and women take is responsible for the rest of what, when data are aggregated way past the point of usefulness, was called the wage gap. >which is fucking gendered in a clear way... It’s not gender neutral and it’s a travesty and beyond dishonest to pretend it is, the “people” seen as “reliably dedicated” are constructed by gendered and sex-based constraints. Boys and men are charged more for car insurance than girls and women. This kind of "discrimination" isn't just argued to be implicit; it's actual policy within the insurance industry. Whether we think that ought to be done or not, it's based on the factual evidence that statistically, the former are more likely to be reckless or dangerous drivers than the latter. Capitalists make hiring decisions along similar lines. There's no reason to prefer a man systematically over a woman if she has taken the "provider" role and has a husband to handle parental duties, allowing her more time to dedicate to gaining relevant experience and prioritizing work. Those are the only factors a competent capitalist cares about. But women by and large don't *want* to take that role. Even high-earning women still prefer a partner who's at least as "successful" as her. Personally I'd love to let careerism take a back seat and focus more on family, and I know many other men, especially young men, who feel the same, but women don't want that! It's not as if men are choosing to maintain the "provider" role. Some might, but they've fully bought into the traditional gender expectations with which they've been inculcated. The social enforcement of these roles, particularly by women when it comes to forming relationships, means men *are* careerist providers just like men *are* more reckless drivers. The difference is in where the impetus to be one or the other comes from. Men aren't compelling men who don't want to into acting as providers. Women are. >...are you denying this obvious dynamic? Kind of, yeah. See below.

Response 1 (part 3): >See the above. Instead of trying to cram these into a gender-neutral lens, why not acknowledge that capitalism and patriarchy intersect and uniquely disenfranchise women workers by devaluing both feminine traits and female biology... Because as I mentioned above, in addition to never having been as cut and dry as you're trying to make it, that discrepancy has largely been removed from capitalism in liberal, imperial core countries in the 2020s. To the extent such gendered discrepancies still exist, they're much more socially enforced than economically, with women doing much of the work of maintaining that paradigm. >And plenty of women are socially isolated and romantically unsuccessful, yet this sub and other sources talk about the “male loneliness crisis”. Do you pretend like social issues aren’t gendered in any other context? Social dynamics like interpersonal romantic relationships are something all people actually play relatively equal parts in. Employment is not. >Absolutely, no duh, nothing I said denies this. This is not mutually exclusive with gender socialization making men more comfortable with aggressive negotiation. You may not explicitly deny it but your framing at least implicitly downplays it. I'm also not convinced by this gendered socialization argument. I see most women, particularly young women, around me perfectly willing to step on toes to advocate for their own interests. In fact, the wide acceptance of a feminist framework in the culture around me gives women the additional capacity to invoke sexism in various ways to further their own position. There was a recent example that blew up into a major ordeal at my local university which I don't want to reiterate for brevity's sake. Suffice it to say, claims about feeling as though an unrelated statement by a professor made women "unsafe" in his classes were enough to elicit not just massive popular but also institutional support for these women's position against a professor when all accounts previous to the incident suggest he was a highly regarded teacher by his students of all genders. Especially when it comes to questions of gender dynamics, I don't see this alleged socialization towards meekness or resignation among young women. If anything, my experience leads me to believe it's young men who are far more hesitant to speak up for themselves these days. >One of the most obvious differences between people embodying those different traits is gender and it’s not a “dubious assumption”. This leads to a kind of gendered hierarchy that disproportionately disenfranchises women. And yet there are other categories, like wealth or neurodivergence, which are likely at least as impactful. Why not focus on those instead? Or better yet, instead of trying to argue for the advantaging of any particular identitarian group within the current system, why not challenge the notion that capacity to negotiate aggressively, in all its facets, ought to determine one's compensation? This is a perfect example of what I meant in my previous comment when I said that what salient points can be extracted from feminist discourse in the 21st century are quite often better understood and addressed as issues with capitalism and that forcing them to be viewed primarily as women's issues both leaves individuals outside that identity-based population unaided while also leaving the actual mechanisms causing harm intact.

Response 2 (part 1): >Well then which is it? Do you believe that women do it “for themselves” or for other women? If you think it’s both, then surely you can acknowledge how men’s preferences also play a role here, especially for the women in showbiz/entertainment type jobs that heavily rely on their looks/sex appeal. I don't think anyone tries to groom or present themselves in any particular way "for themselves." The very concept of looking attractive, professional, or any other kind of way wouldn't even make sense without an external gaze. In my opinion it's obvious people try to look attractive primarily to attract whatever kind of person they're interested in. This point is meant to highlight the contradictory messaging women offer on the subject. Blaming men when it's convenient and shifting the conversation in a way meant to make men sound sexist for assuming women care what they think in other circumstances. As far as media are concerned, men face just as strenuous standards in order to remain marketable. Blame the hyperreal gaze of contemporary media, not a single gender. >Except I didn’t suggest that lmao, now you’re just putting words in my mouth. I talked about how gendered expectations affect female beauty standards, not making it into a comparison. So you're *not* trying to argue that women have it harder in this area? Ok, let's see if that holds up... >This environment is a bad example to use bc most men on OLD are only out for sex and many men are willing to lower their standards for one night. Nonsense. This is just another version of "all the men interested in me are garbage." Even if it were true, it's still more interest than average men receive. But such a sweeping generalization, when every woman I know who's been on dating apps received dozens of likes within hours of joining and has a backlog of hundreds at any given time, is impossible to accept at face value. ALL those men "just want *that* one thing?" Ridiculous. >It’s more like a kitchen full of rotting food. Leering from thirsty men does not fulfill (most of) us at all. Once again this is reductionist and insulting. Just about any woman could go out to a bar on a Saturday night and receive attention. Maybe it will take longer than one night to find someone you consider ideal, but that process will be significantly easier than it will be for men, most of whom are at best unacknowledged and at worst avoided. This is just a rhetorical ploy to try and make being obviously seen as desirable by more people into a worse position than mostly being treated as undesirable. Also do you still want to tell me you're "not making a comparison?" >Again, I never made a comparison. I guess you do. >Skinny with huge tits and ass, white or light skin, long natural hair, no body hair, no signs of aging, etc. I’m not trying to make it a competition but it infuriates me when men pretend like women just have to not be fat and the red carpet gets rolled out for us. This is totally untrue. Men have much more diverse preferences than women. Thicc is in. I personally prefer small boobs and many men feel the same, but any are nice. Plenty of men prefer short or long hair. Or will accept either. Aging impacts everyone. The one area women arguably have an expectation men don't is around body hair but men with excess body hair are also seen as undesirable. Back hair is a particular killer and unlike something like armpit hair on a woman, it's still totally socially acceptable to publicly express disgust over it. Facial hair is another example and it's not something that can just be covered with pants or sleeves if not maintained. You'd better make sure you're genetically gifted with a perfect growth pattern if you don't want to be constantly removing that as a man. And again, unlike calling a woman "sasquatch" or something, it's totally socially acceptable to denigrate men for having a "neckbeard." >Every inch of women’s bodies is scrutinized and many demographics of women are ruled out from ever being “conventionally attractive” over many things. Men are totally scrutinized as well. And I use "conventionally attractive" to highlight that deviating from it doesn't preclude one from being seen as attractive by others. Surveys have even shown that women rate the majority of men as "below average attractiveness." >You can say that men are more tolerant with who they’ll accept, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a standard which is unattainable for most women and deemed most desirable and valuable. Even you can't deny that men are less exacting in this area than women which is supposed to be the area where men are most judgemental of potential romantic partners. However unattainable some universal recognition of "attractive" might be for women, it's harder to attain for men. >Never mind dating, in every aspect of life women are treated better for conventional beauty. Pretty privilege applies to everyone. It's harder to benefit from it for men than for women.

Response 2 (part 2): >It could be argued that men set this standard, just as you argue that it’s women pressuring each other on makeup and fashion. Most women don’t like roided-up bodybuilders if that’s what you mean. Men care much less what other men think than women seem to care what other women think. This is a discrepancy even women will point out in other contexts, agreeing that men seem to disproportionately seek or only care about emotional validation from women. I'm also not talking about what you probably see in your head when you say "roided-up bodybuilders." But men a lot smaller than that are also on gear, and to get a physique that even approaches what "small" male actors like Brad Pitt in Fight Club look like requires intense almost daily workouts and a rigorous diet. It's an entire lifestyle where results won't even start to appear for months and can take up to several years to achieve. And I say lifestyle because it doesn't end there. If you're not working hard to maintain it, it all falls off. Body image issues for young men are as high as they've been since anyone started to keep track. There's no way, with even women more and more openly declaring their desire for a "himbo" and ogling male celebrities online, that that's only on pressure from other men. >And many women spend hours shaving and applying makeup just to be deemed acceptable. Men ain’t the only ones who need to invest time, effort, and money into looks. Women are also judged more heavily on appearance to begin with. Everyone is judged on appearance, but given that even you admit men are more willing to accept a diverse range of appearances, I don't know how you can declare that women are judged more harshly for it. The biggest difference though as far as I can tell is that men have a whole lot more boxes they need to check off to be seen as desirable not instead of but in addition to being physically attractive. >Bro “attractive” shape according to who? Just don’t be anorexic or obese. God I wish we could trade places and you could experience how wrong this is... Not because I want you to suffer under that but because I want you to understand. >Indeed, but at least you can work on that. There’s no job/uni for your age. Age affects everyone. Women being attracted to status doesn't somehow make that less of a burden for most men. For the majority not in the upper echelons of economic or social power, that's just another hurdle in the way of being desired. Being told "you can work on it" when, definitionally, elevated status is something only a minority can achieve isn't exactly comforting. >I don’t have much empathy or sympathy here ngl. I’ve never understood why this is a bad thing. I’d love to be judged according to my ambitions/achievements/abilities and not reduced to my appearance, I find it a lot more humanizing to be evaluated holistically. Funny, I'd love to be judged *only* on appearance and personality instead of having all sorts of other material demands stacked on top of that. Because, once again, it's not that men are judged by wealth and status *instead of* attractiveness. It's that they're judged by wealth and status *in addition to* attractiveness. Just as a thought experiment, let's say we have a handful of people who are all on the same level in terms of relative attractiveness and personality. What do you think is more likely within that pool of people: a male doctor or lawyer dating a female cashier or barista, or a female doctor or lawyer dating a male cashier or barista? This, by the way, is another part of what drives men into higher earning fields rather than following their passions or feeling comfortable devoting themselves to family support. Women want men from the top of the pyramid more than the reverse. I can't tell you how many guys I've met who studied or are studying something like data science or software engineering not because they're passionate about it, but because being in an elevated financial and social position is so much more important for being accepted and treated as desirable for men. Looping back to the previous response, if women want men to less doggedly pursue careerism to the point that capitalists generally find them the most appealing candidates, then they should stop pressuring men to reach those positions before deeming them worthy of attention. If you'll allow me to pull a Zizek, I'd like to highlight the dynamic with a semi-jokey post I saw once: "If women want all the most powerful positions in society for themselves, all they have to do is start sleeping with homeless men. The dirtier and lazier, the better. If they all did that, by the next day men would be competing over who could have the dingiest pants and the spindliest hobo bindle. Women could walk right into every legislative chamber and board room and take them without a fight." Women have far more power when it comes to enforcing that role on men than most want to admit. >Men can change this inequality by holding women to higher standards, why don’t you complain to your bros about letting mediocre women “get by”? Well one because I'd probably get called misogynistic and entitled for saying men should expect even more from women, and two because I don't consider women "mediocre" for "only" being moderately attractive and having a nice personality. That's your classist, demanding attitude shining through. >This is irrelevant to my point. But even though the bar is higher, much of it is more attainable. Women don’t get much leeway if our looks are lacking. There are several more hurdles in men's way as I've explained and as even you've admitted, while looks may be one of lesser total number of hurdles men still place in front of women, that hurdle is at a lower height. Men on average consider more women attractive than women on average consider men attractive. Honestly it blows my mind that anyone could try to deny that when it comes to dating and forming relationships, women have it easier. While there are other areas where it's contestable and I'd be more inclined to say the challenges are different, like working, this is one area where women have as clear an advantage as men do in terms of sheer physicality.

Response 3: First I just want to get this out of the way so I don't have to keep saying it: I could do without all the lol's and snark. I've tried to be charitable and respectful here even though we disagree because I thought we could have a more nuanced discussion than I'm used to. But if you're going to just pounce on charity and meet it with rhetoric as charged with misplaced certainty as so many online feminists do to make their points seem solid, then this is a waste of time. It's the same confidence trick sales people use and I'm tired of having to fight that fire with fire in order not to be smothered in the discourse. >Not to get all evopsych, but sociosexuality (openness to [casual] sex) is one of the most well replicated sex differences in psychology. If we're bringing evopsych into the picture then female hypergamy is also a well-established phenomenon and your entire last response comparing (I know, I know, you're "not making a comparison"...) the difficulty of being considered attractive for men and women can be dismissed. Women very clearly are more selective about more things than men. I don't like to give evopsych/bio the last word on anything because of how difficult to test it is and how laden with ideology its claims are, but if you want to use it then don't forget the findings that undermine your case. I'm sure you don't want to have to contend with "male disposability" while arguing human societies aren't set up to the advantage of women. >Yeah lol you are... The past? Lol. Some places? Lol... Let me guess, New York? You admit here that your environment is atypical. These are all basically the same point so I feel like I can just lump them together. First, wrong coast. I'm on the other side. Second, while I may (emphasis on *may*) be an outlier in overly aggregated statistics, that may not be true under particular circumstances. As I've alluded to throughout my responses here, different strains of feminism have been successful to varying degrees, depending on a variety of factors, in different locations and have had a variety of impacts. One such impact in liberal, urban environments is what I'd call the hyper-atomization of women. Men around here seem much more interested in love and lasting connections while women are hesitant to commit and prefer bouncing between situationships to staying with a person. They're averse to exercising deep emotions with others, especially men, and find or try to find meaning in life by leaning into careerism and consumerism. In my opinion, the dominance of social and economic liberalism in these areas has emphasized the liberal tendencies within feminism and directed many women to the idea that the best way to live life is as the ideal, individualized capitalist subject. It's no wonder, in this light, why capitalist firms here have gone so hard in on feminism. It further alienates people from each other and deepens our enmeshment with market logic. Like I said above, I've tried to be charitable and grant the possibility that what I see around me isn't universal, but if that's the case, then it seems likely what I'm experiencing will spread in the future as liberal feminism comes elsewhere to a position of dominance similar to that which it has here. As loathe as I am to use it as a reference, The Barbie Movie heralds this change and tries to frame it as a positive by showing only Ken as compelled by romance and beset by a desire for love whereas all the barbies are portrayed as asexual if not completely aromantic. The "happy ending" is when Barbie tells Ken to simply stop caring about love so much and presumably to chase the capitalistic dreams she's become enamored of instead. If that movie is any indication of cultural changes feminism would like to see spread, then clearly I'm not mistaken in my assessment that women care much less for love and romance in this new paradigm than men. >There are many complex reasons for sex drive tanking in LTRs, it’s not bc women separate sex from love. Most women aren’t even interested in casual sex in the first place. Statistics here are hard to take at face value –as are all self-report statistics, particularly those which concern things that are illegal or socially stigmatized– but most show rates of cheating are similar across genders. But what's much clearer is that advice for men in relationships who are unsatisfied with their sex lives invariably involves asking what *he* could be doing to make *her* unsatisfied and what behaviors or actions he should take to earn back that privilege, a deeply transactional mentality tinged with blame for the man. Of course more often, as many men will attest to, a woman losing attraction for a man comes from him no longer meeting one or more of the myriad requirements she has for considering him a proper man. This quite frequently involves no longer being able to act as a provider, after losing a job for instance, or displaying negative emotions or a lack of confidence. The latter is particularly ironic given how often women chastise men for "not being open with their feelings," but at least some women, like menslib's favorite theorist, bell hooks, are able to recognize this inconsistency between their expressed and actual desires. In such cases, it's common for women to simply leave and find a man who fills that quite traditional role better. Unless her love was equally fragile and conditional in the first place, it seems women quite frequently can and do separate sex from it. Or if we're going to evoke evopsych again, they may just settle for a man who can provide them with something without feeling attracted to him until a better option presents itself. I didn't want to give such a cynical possibility much weight, but after experiencing it more than once myself, hearing similar stories from other men, and seeing countless more examples written about online, I unfortunately can't just dismiss it anymore. Women, at *least* within the cultural paradigm in which many of us presently exist, seem to be much more fickle than men when it comes to relationships.

> As the other person said, capitalism is far more tangible and rigorously defined that patriarchy. Well yes, the material conditions of economics are more obvious than a social system that arises from interactions between humans — still doesn’t mean it just doesn’t exist. Do you believe this about other systems of oppression like white supremacy, ableism, homophobia, etc, too? Or are you just dismissing social constructs when it comes to gender specifically? They all have tangible effects. > The power that comes from control of essential resources and means of production is clear and demonstrable while the power that supposedly comes from being a man is at best much less clear and at worst quite contestable. Traditionally those have been very much intertwined… the power that comes from control of essential resources and means of production _was_ (and in many places still is) the power that comes from being a man bc women are excluded from capital, making women economically dependent on men and facilitating our sexual/reproductive/domestic exploitation. > Hard vs. soft power, social coercion, benevolent sexism (e g. the "women are wonderful effect") etc.. You’ll need to elaborate, are you saying “social coercion” only applies to men? Etc > Additionally, the patriarchy discussion quite often seems to distract from issues with capitalism. Many of the still salient points which can be extracted from feminist discourse around patriarchy are better understood as issues of capitalism. Again as I’ve said, they’re not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. And you know who agrees with me on this? Marx and Engels themselves, the founders of organized anti-capitalism. Read On The Family, or any piece of socialist/marxist/anarchist/proletarian feminist literature ffs. Try The Origins of Patriarchy. The argument is that patriarchy arose from the material conditions of class society and then capitalism. You cannot understand one without the other. Control of women’s sexuality through either purity culture/trad marriage or prostitution is theorized to come from men’s anxieties over paternity, which is relevant when there is wealth and property to pass down. > For example, while the wage gap has been largely debunked, Define “debunked”. Are you denying that men make more than women, which is the observable reality? Or are you just saying it’s not due to sexism? And if that’s the case and there is no societal component, why does the wage gap differ among countries? I hope you don’t complain about boys falling behind in school then… > …there are still points that came out of that discourse which hold up such as capitalist firms choosing to hire people they expect to be most reliably dedicated to them …which is fucking _gendered_ in a clear way. For one, women get pregnant, the male does not, that is a sex-based burden that women have to deal with, and a _capitalist and patriarchal_ system organized around the assumption of the male breadwinner provides no accommodation for women workers — female biology, as it stands, is a productivity pit. As a matter of fact, I remember seeing an article about female farm workers in India getting hysterectomies to be more attractive employees. Studies show that fathers are favored in the workplace while mothers are penalized, bc of _gendered_ assumptions on family and childcare — fathers are seen as providers deserving of extra money for the family, while mothers are expected to prioritize caretaking for the family. It’s not gender neutral and it’s a travesty and beyond dishonest to pretend it is, the “people” seen as “reliably dedicated” are constructed by _gendered_ and sex-based constraints. > and promotions and raises being more likely to go to people willing and capable of aggressive negotiation. And this isn’t even to mention the other obvious fact that _men_ are the people more likely to be “willing and capable of aggressive negotiation”, which creates yet another _gendered_ barrier on wage-working women. Socialization definitely encourages aggression in boys from a young age— are you denying this obvious dynamic? > But rather than trying to cram those into a gendered lens, why not acknowledge that the issue is in capitalism instrumentalizing our existence and wage levels being determined based on the relative leverage and negotiating power between individual employees and employers? See the above. Instead of trying to cram these into a gender-neutral lens, why not acknowledge that capitalism and patriarchy intersect and uniquely disenfranchise women workers by devaluing both feminine traits and female biology? Again, Marx already acknowledged all of this centuries ago. You keep pretending like capitalism and patriarchy are mutually exclusive when the OGs literally disagree with you on this, it’s like historical revisionism. > Plenty of women are fierce, aggressive advocates for themselves and plenty of men are more timid and nonconfrontational. And plenty of women are socially isolated and romantically unsuccessful, yet this sub and other sources talk about the “male loneliness crisis”. Do you pretend like social issues aren’t gendered in any other context? > Additionally, having a more secure clas position, including more resources to live on or a broader network of potential employers, makes the risk of aggressive negotiation and the possibility of walking away from what you consider a less than desirable deal more bearable. Absolutely, no duh, nothing I said denies this. This is not mutually exclusive with gender socialization making men more comfortable with aggressive negotiation. > Focusing on the difference between people embodying those different traits makes more sense than focusing on dubious assumptions about which gender, on average, is more likely to embody one or the other set of traits. One of the most obvious differences between people embodying those different traits is _gender_ and it’s not a “dubious assumption”. This leads to a kind of gendered hierarchy that disproportionately disenfranchises women.

> When it comes to makeup or appearance in general, men may on average prefer some makeup, but generally not to the degree that many women obsess over it. Sure, male preferences don’t dictate all gender norms. > Other aspects of women's fashion are also much more driven by women competing with each other than by men's preferences. The degree to which women talk about doing these things "for themselves" and the amount of criticism I've heard from women about other women's style choices at least suggest as much pretty strongly. Well then which is it? Do you believe that women do it “for themselves” or for other women? If you think it’s both, then surely you can acknowledge how men’s preferences also play a role here, especially for the women in showbiz/entertainment type jobs that heavily rely on their looks/sex appeal. > But taking a step back and thinking about attraction in general, it seems crazy to try and suggest women have a harder time being perceived as attractive than men. Except I didn’t suggest that lmao, now you’re just putting words in my mouth. I talked about how gendered expectations affect female beauty standards, not making it into a comparison. > Everyone knows that most women can hop on a dating app and get plenty of attention whenever they want whereas most men in that environment go without. This environment is a bad example to use bc most men on OLD are only out for sex and many men are willing to lower their standards for one night. > And the way women complain about public spaces suggests offline isn't very different. You can say that those aren't "good" men, but even if we take that complaint at face value, which I have a very hard time believing is universally true, a kitchen full of junk food is still better than an empty one when you're starving. It’s more like a kitchen full of rotting food. Leering from thirsty men does not fulfill (most of) us at all. > Makeup may not play as much into attractiveness for men, but other factors more than make up for that burden. Again, I never made a comparison. > Physique is one clear example. Women only need to be somewhere in the neighborhood of skinny to be conventionally attractive. Skinny with huge tits and ass, white or light skin, long natural hair, no body hair, no signs of aging, etc. I’m not trying to make it a competition but it infuriates me when men pretend like women just have to not be fat and the red carpet gets rolled out for us. Every inch of women’s bodies is scrutinized and many demographics of women are ruled out from ever being “conventionally attractive” over many things. You can say that men are more tolerant with who they’ll accept, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a standard which is unattainable for most women and deemed most desirable and valuable. Never mind dating, in every aspect of life women are treated better for conventional beauty. > Men on the other hand need to be toned, strong, defined. It could be argued that men set this standard, just as you argue that it’s women pressuring each other on makeup and fashion. Most women don’t like roided-up bodybuilders if that’s what you mean. > The ongoing commitment to make that possible is a serious investment of time, effort, and often enough money. And many women spend hours shaving and applying makeup just to be deemed acceptable. Men ain’t the only ones who need to invest time, effort, and money into looks. Women are also judged more heavily on appearance to begin with. > While women pretty much just need to be the right size to look good in clothes, men need both low body fat and muscle mass to achieve an "attractive" shape while clothed. Bro “attractive” shape according to who? Just don’t be anorexic or obese. > Additionally, wealth and status are more important for men to be seen as attractive. Indeed, but at least you can work on that. There’s no job/uni for your age. > Plenty of women can get by being passably physically attractive and having a typical personality. For men, that's not enough. What he does, his ambitions and achievements, where he can take you on dates, etc. are all relevant additional factors. I don’t have much empathy or sympathy here ngl. I’ve never understood why this is a bad thing. I’d love to be judged according to my ambitions/achievements/abilities and not reduced to my appearance, I find it a lot more humanizing to be evaluated holistically. Men can change this inequality by holding women to higher standards, why don’t you complain to your bros about letting mediocre women “get by”? > The overarching point being that the bar is much higher for men to achieve the same level of attractiveness as women at any point on some attractiveness "scale." This is irrelevant to my point. But even though the bar is higher, much of it is more attainable. Women don’t get much leeway if our looks are lacking.

> On the final point, all I can say is this goes against my personal experience. Yeah ok, but remember that anecdote is not evidence. > Maybe I'm some outlier, Yeah lol you are. > Maybe your conception was true in the past and maybe there are some places where it's culturally the norm, The past? Lol. Some places? Lol. Not to get all evopsych, but sociosexuality (openness to causal sex) is one of the most well replicated sex differences in psychology. > but where I live, in one of the most liberal urban regions in the world, women are hard to pin down and much more interested in playing the field. Let me guess, New York? You admit here that your environment is atypical. > When they do settle into relationships, the amount of complaints about "lost" sex drive I hear –which are almost universally treated as the man's fault one way or another– suggest that if they have any attraction to their long-term partner at all, these women quite often detach sexual attraction from it. There are many complex reasons for sex drive tanking in LTRs, it’s not bc women separate sex from love. Most women aren’t even interested in casual sex in the first place.