|
|
|
|
|
by ausbah
2601 days ago
|
|
>Men and women have the potential to be equally unhappy when you force a partner on them. His point wasn't about happiness for either party, it was that men simply had more societal control and rights than woman at the time arranged marriages were common - so it wasnt so much a partnership as it was one party having a huge amount of control over the other party's autonomy. That may not be the case with arranged marriages today, but I think the historical trend points in that direction. >Also, giving women free reign is causing great inequality between men and women in their chances of having a partner and forming a family, which I believe will be problematic in the future. Very well explained by this other user: This is just sexist drivel, to me you're a.) making frankly unwarranted generalizations about how both genders date, b.) reiterating the shirt 80/20 meme spouted by right wing incels, and c) proposing
a system that takes away both party's freedom of choice with relationships because it's "unfair" to men. |
|
Meh, in my experience (Indians I know) females in both families have the same amount of power when choosing a mate, even more power than males I'd say.
>This is just sexist
Reality is sexist. Both genders are different. That's just the way it is.
>making frankly unwarranted generalizations about how both genders date
You have statistics here, which paint a broader picture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19601600
>reiterating the shirt 80/20 meme spouted by right wing incels
Why is my argument bad? "People I don't like say the same thing" is not an argument.
>proposing a system that takes away both party's freedom of choice with relationships because it's "unfair" to men
I didn't propose that we go back to arranged marriages, and I agree that there's no easy solution. In fact I've got nothing to propose. The fact that there's no solution doesn't mean we should just pretend there's no problem.