[xnavra50]

Agreed. But isnt feminism about equality? Look, the inequality on Dating Apps is natural - it is a result of biologic difference between genders and their behavior. Certainly nothing wrong with that - you dont correct these.

The others - like salaries, (which are of course also subjects to these differences) they want to correct them. Why? Because it benefits them - to have their cake and to eat it.

[vaidhy]

The true question is why are salaries (amongst many other things) subject to the gender. And from what I read above your comment, people do want to correct it in the dating apps too.

So, misplaced anger over self?

[xnavra50]

If I had truly misplaced anger over my self, would that make my argument less valid? Can you really say - well this person's point of view is invalid, because he is, indeed, acting in some sort of anger without knowing anything really about me?

Honestly, I am not angry with myself. And back to the discussion - will that make you listen? :)

I dont want to correct dating apps at all. I said its natural. But I want you to acknowledge, that the difference in behavior is because of gender. And that difference shows in other areas (like willing to take risks - to change jobs for better salary). And to make the conlusion - that if we agree it doesnt make sense to fix dating then it is truly stupid idea to try to artifically "fix" inequalities in the salaries. Because they are natural - an effect of gender behavior differences.

[CrackerNews]

There are different interpretations on equality, and I would say that the inequality in dating markets are a result of the markets as opposed to "nature."

Marriage used to be a familial tool for economics and politics, but it has shifted to being for "love." Did "nature" change or is it culture? However, "love" is ambiguous but some of its reasons seem to have roots in the old ways, such as money, power, or prestige. A person can be good looking and charming, but they need to be capable of providing for their partner. It would be rational for women to select for the best fit, and the imbalance of salaries could influence the imbalance in the dating market.

[psd1]

My app doesn't let me edit comments, but I think you need to hear this: use of the word "natural" is a strong indicator of intellectual dishonesty.

Crunchy people recoil in horror from a listing of ingredients by chemical name, until you tell them it's the constituents of an apple.

Social backsliders like to harken back to some mythical golden age, ignoring that a million years ago we were savannah apes with a society you wouldn't recognise, and ignoring that sexual freedom / matriarchy / homosexuality / transsexuality are found in nature.

The very fact you use the word "natural" in a discussion about a smartphone app ought to be a hint to you.

[xnavra50]

So you are disagreeing with one word I used, but not the concept/idea? Would rephrasing it without the word you are afraid of help you? I can do it for you. :)

[psd1]

Another way to look at it is that the dating asymmetry comes from risk asymmetry. The big risks are pregnancy, violence, and slut-shaming, and those fall far more on females than males.

- Pregnancy is a solved problem in humane technological societies.

- Violence by men against women could be ameliorated significantly by teaching boys better and prosecuting sex crime better.

- Slut-shaming is just jealous recidivist authoritarianism.

Knuckle-dragging conservatives on power trips are the issue.

Your average redpilled incel would get more of the sex they desperately crave, if they (and society at large) stopped making sexual friendliness such an unappealing strategy for women.

That said, to suggest that it's feminists' duty to give men more pussy is a rebarbative position to find yourself in, so... maybe time to rethink?

At the very least, have the honesty to weigh the negative of not getting your ding-a-ling wet against the negative of possibly being dumped in a ditch with bruises on your neck.

[spicymapotofu]

I've often wondered if/how education of young men relates to violence against women. I've no experience with the conductors of this activity, at least AFAIK, and I find it hard to believe that it's an issue that could be impacted by schooling. My school life featured no direct education about this topic, but I came from a high-trust small community, so maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. Do men just see women as less human, leading to this violence?

Are there reputable sources for this connection, or is it a folk myth? Given the heat of the topic, I don't trust myself to find such a source without going down rabbit holes.

[inglor_cz]

Hmm.

"Another way to look at it is that the dating asymmetry comes from risk asymmetry."

That sounds plausible, but I don't think that actual data from dating apps indicate that women really choose their dates by their perceived safeness. It seems that they do prefer younger, hotter and richer dates, which does not necessarily correlate with low risk. "Being very obviously harmless" does not seem to be a good male mating strategy on Tinder et al.

(I am not really inclined to fight a culture war right now, but data is valuable. And I fully understand that people in general are attracted towards better looking peers.)

[gizmo]

Dating is not particularly dangerous for women. When women get murdered it is most often by their long term partner, by an ex, or stalker.

Guys can be real jerks when online dating, but it's not true that women are likely to end up in a ditch because of a coffee date gone awry.

[tgv]

You're not doing anyone a favor with these statements.