I think you're partly right, but also, women are attracted to high-performing, financially established men. The opposite could true as well, but generally* women don't want to settle while men are willing to do so. So majority of men are branded undesirable, but only a minority of women.
For you as a random guy, this is pretty simple: you don't have a good job? bye.
*according to some research I don't know where to look for and anecdotal evidence
Let me add some thoughts as well. It will be slightly tangential, but it will converge in the end...
Men and women are treated very differently for the same things. Think law: family courts, higher sentences for same crimes, domestic violence. Think universities: kangaroo courts for men (while these are technically for everyone, there is no shortage of complaints about "men not being supposed to use these laws this way"). Think culture:
- men getting hurt? ok. women getting hurt? normalizing violence.
- woman cries? let's help her. Man cries? he's so weak.
- women sexually objectified? should be a crime. Men sexually objectified? be glad be find you useful.
- attractive man that talks to you? nice. Unattractive man that talks to you? creep.
- a man does not want to be in a relationship? man-child. A woman doesn't want to be in a relationship? you go girl.
- a woman rapes a men? he probably wanted it. A man rapes a woman? that sick criminal.
There are many scholarships, internships, job offers that are exclusively for women. University admissions are also skewed towards women and other supposedly disadvantaged groups. Yet nobody wants to admit that by unfairly favoring women, you are also unfairly kicking out the men. (Am I the only one who thinks this is just a plain old discrimination?)
It is not too hard to find articles such as "what the workforce needs? more of women's perspective." or "science shows girls code better" or "10 reasons why men are over", or "the future is female".
Universities are banning the words "manpower", "mankind", and similar, yet everybody is preaching "mansplaining" and "manspreading".
One can only face the insults and discrimination for so long.
So when men are no longer interested in work, marriage, or women, or life - perhaps we should not be so surprised.
> If you want a decent dialog you need to practice decent dialog yourself. That begins with dropping weaponized generalities like "feminist outrage" ...
If you want a decent dialog on HN, you should drop weaponized generalities such as saying that "feminist outrage" is a weaponized generality. Weaponized how? Generality how? The "feminist outrage" is a clearly defined phenomenon that is abundant, and in no way it is a "generality" or "weaponized".
> "Women of the West have succeeded in perpetually shaming men"
okay that one may be a "weaponized generality". I guess you're right on this one. But you get startingly closer to truth if you change "women" to "feminists". As for the "shaming of men" by someone, that certainly isn't a generality, and while I'm not going to post a barrage of links just to prove me right (on my newly created account), I vehemently believe you can find abundant amount of examples just by searching the internet.
> Every side in divisive arguments lobs such weapons at each other. We all know exactly what those leads to on the internet: more of the same, only worse. We don't want that kind of war on HN. We want thoughtful discussion, which means dropping preconceived formulations and really engaging with each other.
Agreed. Discussion typically happens when participants drop feelings from arguments and try to engage each other rationally. (Or at least, that's one way to look at it). So why are you putting the guy down for expressing his opinion (while not insulting others)?
> We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men.
The mysterious forces were not "meant to keep women as dependents of men". They evolved naturally, women took care of the babies while men hunted/gathered stuff. Nowadays, this division is no longer necessary, since you usually don't need muscles and physical prowess to do a job, or at least it doesn't give you a significant advantage.
> If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers. They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs.
You mean as in having scholarships, internships, and work positions exclusively for women? If you don't believe me, take a look at job offers in SF/NYC.
For you as a random guy, this is pretty simple: you don't have a good job? bye.
*according to some research I don't know where to look for and anecdotal evidence