Schadrach

It’s not. In the western world this is a myth based on extremely outdated gender and family stereotypes. Some women prefer to have men pay, some prefer to pay themselves, some don’t really care. It’s not a hard rule you can use as an excuse to give up.

Generally, not absolutely at all times. The woman I eventually married settled into a plan of taking turns as to who pays for dates (she literally insisted to pay for the second date since I paid for the first, and it grew into a pattern from there). From the mid 90s to the first Trump admin (the period of time in which I was dating girls/women) she was one of only 3 who suggested or encouraged splitting the costs in some fashion.

This is just straight up incel cope. You cannot put all women in a box like that and then wonder why you are struggling to meet anyone.

Who put all women in a box? It’s a tendency, a trend, not an absolute descriptor of all individuals. At the same time if you believe wealth/status indicators do not play a significant role in how attractive women perceive men to be, or at least no more so than the reverse you’re going to be very disappointed in the ladies. There is research out there to that effect, specifically that wealth indicators correlate positively with attractiveness for both men and women, but that the effect is much stronger in women considering men than the other way around.

I’d argue patriarchy is a bad model for the social dynamics regarding sex. It’s just another rebranding of Marxist class conflict onto something other than economic class, and as a consequence it works about as well as that something actually resembles (or alternately is a proxy for) economic class. This means it works OK for race in the US (except for Asians, who get to be functionally white in some cases) but it it’s a bad fit for sex.

It’s why there are so many apologetics around patriarchy for all the myriad cases where reality just doesn’t seem to align with what you would expect based on it a priori. “The patriarchy hurts men too” is probably the most common, though you’d be hard pressed to argue “Capitalism hurts billionaires too” or “white supremacy hurts whites too” in the same kind of fashion. Because the moment you stop looking at the fraction of a percent of the top performers the idea that society was created by and for men to benefit men above women first and foremost just doesn’t align with observation.

What seems to be a more fitting model to me is malagency, the idea that agency is inappropriately assigned based on the sex of the party in question. Specifically that in general women are assumed to have less agency than they otherwise might while men are assumed to have more agency than they otherwise might. This fits neatly with lots of observations - ideas presented by a man being given extra credit or consideration than the same coming from a woman (because he’s seen as more responsible for his ideas than a woman might be), the very highest tiers of things having over-representation by men but also when men are also over-represented at the bottom (for example, rough sleeping homeless) because they are seen as more responsible for their own successes and failures as well, or why the criminal justice system treats men much worse than women (women are seen as less responsible for their transgressions). Etc, etc.

instead of blaming all their problems and all the world’s problems on women and feminists

Sometimes it is their fault. Protests against equal custody laws, for example. Kentucky was the first state to pass one that required the judge in contested custody cases to start from the position that equal custody is best for the child unless there is a reason it might not be. The closest other states had gotten before that were laws that required judges “consider” equal custody as a possibility, as opposed to having to work from it as a starting point.

Ever seen the Big Red angry feminist meme? She’s a real person from Toronto and the meme started because she was protesting a talk on suicide in men at the University of Toronto by shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd, and if anyone tried to engage with her yelling “shut up fuckface!” or similar at them. A few different phrasings but she was fond of “fuckface” as an insult in particular. If you check out The Red Pill documentary (it’s creator did a Kickstarter to fund finishing it) one of the interviews is of Big Red herself.

The organization behind that talk on suicide in men later went on to found what at the time (and possibly still is though I haven’t checked) the only shelter for male victims of abuse in Canada.

Not the first such shelter, as that was Men’s Alternative Safe Housing which was founded by Earl Silverman and had to be run entirely on his own resources and private donations because he couldn’t get government funding for it because it was a men’s shelter and not a women’s shelter. Eventually he couldn’t afford to keep it going, and when he had to shut it down hung himself in the garage of his now-defunct shelter the day after he sold it.

what the manosphere is

Literally coined by one person who wanted to lump all men’s spaces online together to sell a book. Later used to equate the worst incel, PUA, and redpill spaces with people who oppose circumcision, separated fathers who want to see their kids more, people who call out law or policy that’s biased against men either explicitly or in practice, etc in order to use the former to spite the latter by putting them in the same box.

You know, basically the thing that if you try to do with women’s groups you get responded to with “feminism is not a monolith.”

Because it is. Women aren’t magically getting rich while all the men go bankrupt.

Wouldn’t be required, so long as the social expectation is that straight dating generally requires men to spend on women over the reverse. All it requires is that the dude not have the money to spare, regardless of how women are doing. Couple that with the tendency for women to tend to strongly preference men who are wealthier or higher status than themselves, and just barely scraping by means you have a generally smaller dating pool available as a straight guy. That still generally expects you to be spending on them, rather than the reverse.

Now, what happens when we combine them together to make… Sonichu!

…you get serially harassed by online weirdos, likely become the single most documented human in all of history because of said weirdos, come out as trans and eventually get charged for incest with your mother?

Like the ridiculous subscription mouse a few months back, I’d be willing to bite with the right incentives, but those aren’t incentives the manufacturer is going to be OK with. I’d take a car with ads, so long as it was sufficiently discounted compared to a normal car. And then I’d look up how to disable the ads.

Again, maybe you should look at a racial breakdown on the same, and then ask yourself why you don’t consider that trustworthy but are fine with using conviction numbers for men as proof of what reality looks like.

Again, the criminal justice system broadly speaking shits on black people and men (and as a consequence black men even moreso) in similar ways and by most measures to similar degrees. And by “shits on” I mean is more likely to charge, more likely to convict, gives longer sentences, is more likely to shoot, etc, etc.

Not analogous in any meaningful way.

Let’s try it. I’m thinking of a group of people. This group of people is disproportionately subjected to police violence, including police shootings. This group is more likely to be prosecuted when accused of a crime, is more likely to be convicted when prosecuted, and gets harsher sentences when convicted. What group am I describing? Hint: The answer is that all that applies to both black folks and men, and usually to similar degrees (close enough that some measures have a wider sex gap and others have a wider race gap). And that’s not even a complete list of similarities.

By the vast majority of measures the way men are treated by the criminal justice system compared to women and the way black folks are treated by the criminal justice system compared to white folks line up (other non-white racial groupings tend to end up somewhere between). Race and sex also both apply, meaning that black men get treated the worst and white women get treated with kid gloves. Depending on the specific measure, sometimes the gender gap is actually wider than the racial gap but that again depends on the specific measure (for example black folks are more disproportionately killed by police than men are but mostly because that would require more than 100% of police shootings to be men instead of merely 95%, while men get disproportionately harsher sentencing for many crimes than women to a larger degree than black folks do compared to white folks).

I personally know a white woman from here who got busted for drugs in another state, was released on her own recognizance pending her hearing, fled back here, was eventually picked up, spent a few days in jail while the other state decided it wanted to extradite her and made arrangements to transfer her, went before a different judge and was released on her own recognizance pending her new hearing date a second time, despite demonstrably proving she was a flight risk. That’s doesn’t happen unless you are a white woman, preferably a young, pretty one because those traits both carry further privileged treatment by criminal justice.

Unless you want to argue that men are underprivileged in society.

I’d argue you are operating from a bad model. The core problem is that a lot of social justice models are ultimately built upon a bedrock of Marxist class conflict, with people being assigned into roles of bourgeois-analog “oppressor” and proletariat-analog “oppressed”. The problem is that the degree to which Marxist class conflict actually works as the basis for a model is basically the degree that whatever feature you are basing it on functions as a proxy for economic class. For race, it does well enough in the aggregate that it works, albeit imperfectly. For sex, however it’s a poor fit.

The trick is that to justify fitting sex into a model based on class conflict you lie to yourselves by looking at the sex distribution at the very top and pretending that that tells you anything useful about men as a whole (this is a fallacy of composition). Or to put it another way, Nancy Pelosi and turtle lich Mitch McConnell have more in common with each other than either of them does with men or women as a general class.

A consequence of this is a whole series of apologetics and the like to try to justify why the model still holds even when evidence seems to run counter to it. Like using epicycles and deferents to try to make a geocentric model of the solar system fit reality. Except it;s all things about how “the patriarchy hurts men too” in exactly the way you wouldn’t say “capitalism hurts billionaires too” and that kind of thing. Like why in a system allegedly built on male supremacy would men be treated worse by criminal justice than women, in all the same ways that this same system that is also allegedly built on white supremacy treats black folks worse than white folks? The short answer is that it’s unfalsifiable, the model can be stretched to fit any measurement of reality.

A better though still imperfect approach is the concept of malagency which seems to do a better job of actually predicting how western culture actually treats people with respect to sex. The core notion of malagency is that society treats men as hyperagentic (that is men are perceived to have greater agency/responsibility than they actually might) and women as hypoagentic (that is women are perceived to have less agency/responsibility than they actually might). Applied to criminal justice, this directly explains things like men being given higher bail and longer sentences for the same crimes - men are seen as more responsible for their crimes, and so “deserve” a longer sentence. Even when a man and woman do a crime together, the man is often subject to higher bail or a longer sentence, which makes no sense as “privilege” but makes all kinds of sense if men are treated as having greater agency. When having lots of agency/responsibility for your actions is beneficial, this leads to better treatment for men and conversely when having greater agency/responsibility for your actions is not beneficial, this leads to worse treatment for men.

So for example, imagine we both saw a news headline on Reddit or Lemmy about a young woman throwing her newborn baby out a window, leading to it dying in the ambulance. Presumably under a model of privilege and male supremacy, we’d expect lots of blame directed at her and her behavior because she’s a woman and any comments questioning her guilt or supporting her to be downvoted. Under malagency, you’d expect people to immediately start looking for ways to diminish her responsibility for throwing her child out a window and maybe even poking at the possibility of the father being at least partly to blame in some fashion for the baby killing and downvoting anyone laying responsibility for the killing squarely on her, because the slant is minimizing her agency for what she did and if possible assigning agency to a man.

What do you think we’d actually see in those comments? Hint: this isn’t a hypothetical, it’s a recent news story that’s popped up on Reddit and you should take a look. It…strongly resembles what you’d expect under malagency.

Is it time to bust out the crime statistics?

What is it you’d call someone who said exactly this but was talking about crime statistics broken down by race rather than sex, again?

What did you (I) do to deserve Donald Trump? Is this a punishment for misandry?

Yes. Unironically, yes. Young men have swung right in a way that the youth usually doesn’t and it is in a meaningful way because Dems and progressives offer them little, blame them for much and the right welcomes them in with open arms.

SSNs are reused. Someone dies and their number gets reassigned.

Not even that. If you were born before 2014 or so and you’re from somewhere relatively populous theres a pretty good chance there’s more than one living human with your SSN right now. SSN were never meant to be unique, the pairing of SSN and name was meant to be unique but no one really checked for that for most of the history of the program so it really wasn’t either. The combination of SSN, name and age/birthdate should actually be unique though because of how they were assigned even back in the day.