Is feminism to blame for modern dating problems?

[Anonymous No.10503061]

Nature has provided most animal species with strictly defined roles for their sexes. For humans, males are supposed to be dominant and they are supposed to be the main contributors to society. Females are supposed to be skilled in homemaking while one day hoping to find a strong, honorable man who will provide care and protection for her and her future children. This was the norm for all human cultures for thousands of years. However, modern feminist propaganda is encouraging men to be weak and feminized and it's also encouraging women to enter social roles that don't naturally belong to them. This large upset in the balance of nature is leaving many members of both sexes unable to find a suitable and long-term partner.

[Anonymous No.10503068]

>>10503061
1. this board is 18 +
2. go lurk /pol/ more until you aren't a retard

[Anonymous No.10503076]

>>10503068
since you're probably just naive ill be a little nicer. To answer your questions:
No, feminism is not "to blame" for modern dating problems.
Yes, feminism has had the effects you have stated.

Your problem is that you aren't asking the right questions.

[Anonymous No.10503078]

>>10503061
>males are supposed to be dominant
thats where you’re wrong. we evolved from bonobos and bonobos have female led congress. females fuck males anytime a male gets an erection and it keeps them calm

[Anonymous No.10503125]

>>10503078
1. bonobos don't have congress.
2. we did not evolve from bonobos, if we did, there would be mid-way life forms.
3. if we evolved from bonobos, then we ARE NOT BONOBOS, and thus that evolutionary psychology shit is retarded. that's like saying that a sparrow should act like a velociraptor because its ancestor was one.
4. you'll fail in life

[Anonymous No.10503145]

>>10503061
Only indirectly. The real problems are population density. Resource scarcity. Overcrowding. Destruction of gender roles. Rejection of religion. Rejection of marriage.

The big one though was the pill. Women can now control their irrational sexual urges with a simple pill. We cannot.

This skews the power dynamic in their favour. Deal with it. Feminists are just a symptom not the cause.

[Anonymous No.10503157]

What dating problems? Everyone I know is doing great.

[Anonymous No.10503161]

>>10503078
We evolved from chimpanzees, except from white people

[Anonymous No.10503166]

>>10503078
>>10503161
Common ancestor =! descended from. Learn how evolution works before posting here again.

[Anonymous No.10503168]

>>10503166
Ha! You dare doubt my superior biology skills?! I've done like three PCRs.

[Anonymous No.10503186]

>>10503061
>Nature has provided most animal species with strictly defined roles for their sexes. For humans, males are supposed to be dominant and they are supposed to be the main contributors to society. Females are supposed to be skilled in homemaking while one day hoping to find a strong, honorable man who will provide care and protection for her and her future children
This is what you think, shaped by your bubble, not what "nature" thinks. Excellent bait. And I see that since your words have no value you've had to compensate by using David as the op picture, hoping to hitch a hike per association.

[Anonymous No.10503244]

Modern dating problems come from hyper-connectivity of individuals creating unrealistic selection pools. Everyone nowadays thinks they can do better than the people that surround them because they can go online and look at thousands of pictures or videos of better looking guys and girls creating an artificial conception of an inflated dating pool which isn't real.

[Anonymous No.10503245]

>>10503061
>nature

The whole point of being human is overcoming/shaping nature by creating artificial environments and tools. Sure, women may be better at household chores by biological design. I don't know, I don't care. It's 2019 and doing household chores doesn't take more than 1-2 hours a day unless you have children. Soon it will be zero because we'll have robo-maids. It's more efficient to have women working than sitting at home watching TV shows. So even if your premises were true, your argument is invalid.

As per how this affects modern dating, women nowadays can be single if they so choose, because they can work and be financially independent. They don't need to stick to a guy to secure their financial future. Therefore, they get pickier. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.10503252]

>>10503244

In other words, the women around you who are possible dating options will never beautiful or smart enough. And for women, the men around them will never be handsome enough nor will they ever earn enough money because the hyper-connected world has artificially inflated expectations to an absurd level in which the elite of sparse societies spread across the world are perceived to be the expected of the local population.

That's my opinion at least.

[Anonymous No.10503271]

>>10503061
Even in a strict role society, I can't imagine any female wanting to fuck you

[Anonymous No.10503291]

>>10503061
if you post regularly on 4chan (or even browse regularly, for that matter) the only one to blame for your dating problems is yourself.

get out more and improve yourself. fix your problems. stop feeling sorry for yourself and stop being a lazy piece of shit

[Autolycus No.10503297]

>>10503061
>modern dating problems?
What problems? Just romance a woman, the only natural role for them is Goddess. Every man knows that.

[Anonymous No.10503309]

>>10503061
The fault lies in the commodification of human relationships and the penetration of neoliberal moral values within the family unit.

[Anonymous No.10503311]

>>10503061
>omg du feminism is baed

Go back to 2016 and then grow up.

[Anonymous No.10503314]

>>10503125
Evolving from a bonobo would make us bonobos. Basic cladistics.

[Anonymous No.10503355]

>>10503061
This post is full of assertions with very little science.
>Nature has provided most animal species with strictly defined roles for their sexes.
Not entirely false, but so what? The fact that something is natural is completely meaningless, it merely defines the most common case. Furthermore, we can see less and less genetically determined behavioral patterns the more sapient the creature is, which clearly shows that strictly defined behavior is only necessary (or beneficial) if the organism does not actually knows what is doing.
>For humans, males are supposed to be dominant and they are supposed to be the main contributors to society. Females are supposed to be skilled in homemaking while one day hoping to find a strong, honorable man who will provide care and protection for her and her future children.
I believe some sort of validation is required
>This was the norm for all human cultures for thousands of years.
t. never read a fucking book in his life. Do you think that hunters gatherers societies could afford to have stepfordian housewives? Do you think Romans would shy away from employing women in the workforce or as slaves? Do you think feudal peasants had the manpower to afford wasting that of women? Do you think men in the early industrial revolutions were called proletariat for the sake of it or because their only resource was children (and the women that birthed those children)? Since at the time women and children were preferred over men in many industries, not in small part because they were cheaper.
Please think about this.
> However, modern feminist propaganda is encouraging men to be weak and feminized and it's also encouraging women to enter social roles that don't naturally belong to them.
Modern feminism is encouraging what exactly? Who is encouraging what? What secific person is encouraging what specific behavior?

[Anonymous No.10503357]

>>10503145
>The big one though was the pill. Women can now control their irrational sexual urges with a simple pill. We cannot.
That's not what the pill does, have you ever talked to a woman ?

[Anonymous No.10503364]

>>10503145
>The real problems are population density. Resource scarcity. Overcrowding.
Malthuse was an ignorant fuck that wanked to the idea of watching poor people die. The fact that people still take his ideas seriously is fucking hilarious.
>Destruction of gender roles
Change is synonym with life, anon. Stagnation is death.
>Rejection of religion
Literally nothing wrong with this one.
>Rejection of marriage
Literally nothing wrong with this one.
>The big one though was the pill. Women can now control their irrational sexual urges with a simple pill. We cannot.
As anon said, that is not what the pill does.
>This skews the power dynamic in their favour
Women wants less sex (in your imaginary world at least) and that makes them more powerful? What does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.10503379]

>>10503364
It creates a situation where to acquire pussy you must pander to the delusions of a spoiled child. Even at the cost of your own sanity. It's a form of slavery. The most honest sex is the result of an exchange for currency or some other reward.

Bitches literally be hoes. So what.

This is why incels are impossible. If you want s3x enough you just have to submit.

Now why would I want to do that?

Women get horny like a bitch on heat when they are fertile. By preventing their fertility cycle they control this behaviour.

[Anonymous No.10503388]

>>10503379
>It creates a situation where to acquire pussy you must pander to the delusions of a spoiled child. Even at the cost of your own sanity. It's a form of slavery. The most honest sex is the result of an exchange for currency or some other reward.

Edgy 1800’s sexism. Please prove that having sex requires “pandering to the delusions of a spoiled child”. Sounds like you’re raping disabled kids. Disgusting.

>Women get horny like a bitch on heat when they are fertile. By preventing their fertility cycle they control this behaviour.

The increase in libido during the fertile period is so small that it goes unnoticed.

[Anonymous No.10503390]

discuss things that can be measured

political subversion should not be discussed on a science board
because no one is going to agree what that subversion is, or if it even exists

[Anonymous No.10503393]

>>10503379
>It creates a situation where to acquire pussy you must pander to the delusions of a spoiled child. Even at the cost of your own sanity. It's a form of slavery. The most honest sex is the result of an exchange for currency or some other reward.
Do you even listen to yourself? Having to deal with the person attached to the object of your desire is slavery? Sex is economically driven?
Who the hell is the delusional, mentally ill child here? The one that dares to want to be treated like a peson or the one that dehumanizes half of humanity because they cannot get their wee-wee wet?
>This is why incels are impossible. If you want s3x enough you just have to submit.
Oh that's why rape
s not a thing. I see.
>Women get horny like a bitch on heat when they are fertile. By preventing their fertility cycle they control this behaviour.
There is no study that definetly proves human sex drive is hormonal driven. There are instead plenty ofstudies that prove the opposite. This is true both for women and men.

[Anonymous No.10503409]

>>10503388
>>10503393
Here we go. PC parade out in force.

Provide evidence based statements instead of whimsical appeal to emotions. I'll not reduce myself to your level leftist scum.

[Anonymous No.10503426]

>>10503061
Yes, but we as a species has also been on the moon. So I'd say we're doing quite well all things considered.

What's worrying me the most is how feminism causes men to have low amounts of testosterone, which in turn results in low sperm count and depression. This is without a doubt caused by feminism, not "tight pants" or "chemicals" or whatever bullshit reason they claim to have. It's basically only in areas where feminism has gone far which sperm count is low for men.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sperm-count-declining-north-america-europe-australia-1.4220661

[Anonymous No.10503429]

>>10503409
>Here we go. PC parade out in force.

Here we go. Ad hominem red herrings already. :-)

>Provide evidence based statements

Why? I didn’t make any claims of my own except for one about libido levels during fertility, whereas you made multiple claims you haven’t met the burden of proof for here: “It creates a situation where to acquire pussy you must pander to the delusions of a spoiled child. Even at the cost of your own sanity. It's a form of slavery. The most honest sex is the result of an exchange for currency or some other reward.”
And here: “Women get horny like a bitch on heat when they are fertile. By preventing their fertility cycle they control this behaviour.”

How about you prove your claims to be true before you start asking other people to make claims that even have burdens of proof, alright?
I’ll even help you out. This meets the burden of proof for my sole claim and gives a little credence to one of yours, assuming you’re using hyperbole.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11912001
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15216427

>instead of whimsical appeal to emotions.

Please show me, >>10503388, exactly where I used an appeal to emotion.

>I'll not reduce myself to your level leftist scum.

Really making yourself look like the le epic logic guy by attempting to shift the burden of proof already and using ad homs.

[Anonymous No.10503436]

>>10503429
The irony of hypocrisy.

2/10 you made me smile. I'm not reading through your speel of gay propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10503440]

>>10503436
>The irony of hypocrisy.

Please show the world the hypocrisy in my posts.

>2/10 you made me smile. I'm not reading through your speel of gay propaganda.

Lol /pol/tard trolls are weak these days. No bump for you.

[Anonymous No.10503448]

>>10503426
Have you looked at the possibility they're both caused by chemicals? Or maybe even too many low t men around causes feminism.

[Anonymous No.10503452]

>>10503448
Well, chemicals wouldn't really make sense since the consumption patterns and therefore exposure to chemicals are very similar in basically every country around the world.

>Sperm counts for men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand have declined by more than 50 per cent in the last four decades

What happened four decades ago? The feministic revolution. So I'd say that feminism is the cause, and low t is the result.

[Anonymous No.10503456]

>>10503452
I doubt feminism alone is the sole cause. Men are under unnatural pressures which causes stress.

This stress is not burnt off through natural behaviours because that would be out of place with societal restrictions. Feminism is one of these stressors but not directly and it is not the only stressor.

[Anonymous No.10503458]

>>10503061
.

[Anonymous No.10503467]

>>10503076
Not OP, but what are the right questions?

[Anonymous No.10503468]

>>10503452
>this is science now
What a pathetic excuse for a brain you have.
>>10503409
We should provide evidence of what? I was the one asking, fag.

[Anonymous No.10503485]

>>10503452
Have you considered the possibility that regions where feminism is most prevalent are also the most developed and therefore exposure to certain kinds of chemicals will also be higher there? Goddamn your confirmation bias is painful to see.

“The feministic revolution”

What “feministic revolution”, whatever that means? Women got the right to vote in the U.S in the early 1900’s.

[Anonymous No.10503490]

>>10503485
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism

A lot of laws about equality and that sort of shidazz were written during the 1970's. The "anti-discrimination" movement has it's roots there.

>the most developed and therefore exposure to certain kinds of chemicals will also be higher there
Chemicals like what? And i'd suspect areas where no toxic filtering exists, like africa or "made in china"-parts of china, where the consumption is unregulated and unsecure, would have significantly more exposure to chemicals. I mean most western countries has a craze for veganism and ecological foods and clothes and all that.

[Anonymous No.10503497]

>>10503490
let me say that I just love how absolute bonkers logical leap of yours is.
>fertility is going dowm
>It's the feminazis!
Really. Literally no other explanation avaliable, somehow a social movement produced long term biological changes in an entire population.

[Anonymous No.10503503]

>>10503490
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism

A lot of laws about equality and that sort of shidazz were written during the 1970's. The "anti-discrimination" movement has it's roots there.”

Oh no, opposition to discrimination, sexism, and racism. REEEEEE. By what mechanism do you propose that “a lot of laws about equality” decrease sperm counts, and why are you so quick to toss out all possible factors without actually investigating them? (wonder why)

>Chemicals like what?

How about you read your own source? Jesus Christ.

"On average, men's weight is going up, so there's higher rates of obesity, and we also know that obese men have lower sperm counts," Jarvi said. "So you can start to correlate weight and reduction in sperm counts."
“Environmental exposure to "estrogenics" — including female hormone compounds — can also reduce sperm counts, he said, noting that plastics are among the sources of estrogenics in the environment.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615362/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160304092230.htm

>And i'd suspect areas where no toxic filtering exists, like africa or "made in china"-parts of china, where the consumption is unregulated and unsecure, would have significantly more exposure to chemicals.

Africans barely have birth control at all, let alone “the pill”. Developed countries use birth control pills a lot and then the women essentially piss them right into the water supply.

>I mean most western countries has a craze for veganism and ecological foods and clothes and all that

I don’t see the connection between this and sex hormone levels. Vegans have par or above-average testosterone and I have no idea what effect “ecological clothes” could have on your sex hormone levels.

I don’t see the

[Anonymous No.10503508]

>>10503503
>I have no idea what effect “ecological clothes” could have on your sex hormone levels
I guess he is afraid European men are getting less manly because they no longer regularly engage in imperialistic endeavours (in mass, at least). That's how I'd read it.

[Anonymous No.10503512]

>>10503061
eh, i wouldn't blame feminism, more like you should blame progressivism except it gave us some good stuff too

[Anonymous No.10503515]

>>10503508
Clearly, the solution is to attack African countries again and begin grueling and extremely expensive geurilla wars during which we explode all the forests with napalm and agent orange, then mine all the minerals using captured slaves fed on the corpses of their families. Hail Britannia!

[Anonymous No.10503521]

>>10503061
It's merely something that adds to it. The actual "problem" is the internet. People have realized that they are better ways to spend one's time that to search for a mate. If you're in a bunch of private trackers you have an almost unlimited stream of media you can consume. You can educate yourself in various languages and fields without leaving the house, watch every single film ever and every single book ever written for the measly cost of a seedbox subscription. I've been in 11 relationships throughout my life and after a certain point I simply said: fuck it. I have no interest in having kids, so why would I sacrifice a shit ton of my free time to spend it with someone whom I usually disagree with? Relationships and marriage are only worth it if you manage to find your soulmate. Someone you can truly enjoy living with. Given the ~50% divorce rates in many civilized countries, there don't seem to be a lot of people finding said soulmate, though. So I'll be spending my time on self fulfillment. Be the best, most educated and interest me I can be. Not for others, and sure as hell not for a woman, but for myself since one day I'll day and I don't want to think
>maybe I should have studied and explored the field of X a bit more thoroughly

[Anonymous No.10503562]

>>10503314
>we are single cell organisms because that's what we started as

[Anonymous No.10503567]

>>10503061
what dating problems are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.10503572]

>>10503245
>It's more efficient to have women working than sitting at home watching TV shows.

But this devalues labor and so results in more money being put towards people who invest in real estate.

[Anonymous No.10503576]

>>10503562
No, silly. “Single-celled organisms” isn’t a clade. It’s a description that could be applied to bacteria, archaea, or most eukaryotes, whereas a clade is a taxonomic grouping based around common ancestry. I’d suggest you ask your local bio professor about cladistics, or check out some introductory literature on the subject.

[Anonymous No.10503677]

>>10503157
This
You are only single if you want to be.