| >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. 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. |
Either way, ok there are some biological differences between the genders and reality can be sexist, but neither of those points support or justify what you are saying about men and woman.
Can you be more specific on what in the link is suppose to support your point?
And the "80/20 rule" is a bad argument because it isn't supported by actual studies or whatever as far as I know, its more of a gross misuse of the Pareto rule by right-wing incels, Redpillers, or whoever to how woman date.