I can believe the validity of the stat, but at the same time I can also understand how the % of even men my age, who are single, is probably way lower than it was decades ago. Things have changed greatly in the landscape of the dating game, since the previous century. Women have also greatly changed in their attitudes and behavior towards men in the dating game. I would also be interested in the specifics of what circumstances are being studied in the research that was cited. Are they talking about young men cold approaching women in public, or does the stat cover also circumstances such as online dating or asking a woman out on a date where they are both already in proximity or contact, such as sharing a workplace or attending the same school, etc. ? I can tell you that nowadays almost no men do cold approaches anymore to women, at any age, in public with strangers, unless it's a bar environment or a dance club. Because outside of those situations the inhibitions are too great for the men and also the assumption is that most women want to be left alone and not hit on by stranger men at these other public situations. I recently saw an amusing and thought provoking comment on reddit, that said that if women run across a man they find attractive and interesting, in a romantic way, they should " put on their big girl pants and go talk to him, adopting the spirit of their grandmother or great grandmother, who would drop a handkerchief to get the man's attention. Like they did back then, when the sexes would go thru their accepted, elaborate rituals of courting and dating etiquette".

Of course, I can tell you from experience, that almost no women will ever follow that advice, because they both know from talking to men who tell them that rarely do cold approaches work for men, at least the average looking ones, and also that they have no intention of experiencing the rejection and embarrassment that men encounter with doing cold approaches. And yet, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that almost all men would at least be flattered and respond positively and appropriately to being cold approached by women, after recovering from the initial shock, even if they were not reciprocally interested in dating the woman..

One thing is certain, a society in which a large % of young men are asexual and socially isolated or alienated from women, is not a good thing for said society, same as the whole incel culture these days. It only corrodes our society..

I find it refreshing that women are being encouraged to approach a man first. Obviously, Bumble was well ahead in this direction. However, I will tell you that some women have fantasies that a "real man" pursues the woman he is interested in. The man is expected to initiate, and it is a perception of weakness if he doesn't. Please note that I am not agreeing with these traditional gender roles. I have four adult sons and, as a feminist, am very careful about male-bashing. I don't want a world where my sons are subject to such rigid expectations that are not healthy for anyone. Regardless, though, I do feel that, from articles I've read and even anecdotal conversations with single women, they will question a potential date who wasn't pursuing first.

As a side note, I've been separated/divorced since 2017. Of the dozen or so "first dates" I went on initiated through a dating app, I pursued all of them. Meaning I made the first introduction. If I had waited to be contacted first, I would have had no dates.

Unfortunately, Bumble removed the requirement that women message men first. That happened about a year or so ago, because they found the majority of their female customers weren't interested in doing so, so they made the change to save their revenues and membership numbers, tho their stock price still suffered from this problem. I find your strong and honest feminism refreshing, tho I find that sort of thing rare among the single women my age where I live. Probably because I live in a red state in a very traditional-minded, conservative region, the midwestern US. Glad you're raising your sons in a progressive way that encourages them to be open-minded. I see so much misogyny and misandry, on the part of the respective genders, both where I live and online in social discussion forums. Also glad that you were pro active and independent about your online dating habits, by approaching men first, rather than the conventional norm for women of waiting for men to message or approach them first on dating sites, as that method seems to almost always result in the women only getting interest from scammers, players, and men who are incompatible, etc. Why not act like we men have had to do since before I was born, namely choosing who we want or feel compatible with, and making the approach ourselves, knowing that we will usually be rejected? But at least when we aren't rejected, we make a connection with someone we want, rather than just settling for someone we don't really want, just because they approached us first. It feels like a parallel, at least for me, to voting. Why keep voting for the lesser evil, esp., in primary elections, instead of voting our hopes and true choices, so at least we are voting for something or someone we believe in or truly want? I have little respect for either group, singles who choose to wait on being approached by the other gender, or voters who keep voting for lesser evil candidates,

and then turn around and gripe about how they don't get the partners or leaders they want. I am surprised that you weren't getting the interest from men on dating sites, without making the first move yourself, since your profile pic would suggest your looks are at least average for women your age, if not better. I have heard that on dating sites, most women with average looks or better get lots of interest, even if most of it is unwanted and from scammers, players just looking for sex, or fake profiles, etc. But I've also heard from plenty of women in my local dating pool, including women I ended up meeting in person or dating, who said the same thing as you, as far as not getting much interest from men on dating sites. And my hunch is that for those women, same as myself in the online dating game, it's because they are a mismatch for their local dating pool, on cultural and lifestyle traits, compared to the opposite gender that makes up the majority of singles in their target age range. In my local dating pool, for example, if you don't love Jesus and country music, lean right or Repub in politics, and have kids, family that you are close to, aren't really big on social drinking, you have multiple red flags that will disqualify you with the vast majority of women in my age group. You may fall into the same category with your local online dating pool. Many people online are quick to assume the problem is with the individual single that struggles in the dating game, rather than the local gender ratios for singles on dating sites, or their mismatch with the majority of their local online dating pool..

I'm also assuming that on your dating profiles, outside of this site, that you include other pics than just your one here, including at least one full body shot pic. That seems to be the norm for dating profiles, of both genders, if you want interest from singles. As for "first dates" from dating sites, I just call them meet and greets, since they rarely go anywhere after that....

5 hours ago, BobDylan said:

". . . I would also be interested in the specifics of what circumstances are being studied in the research that was cited . . ."

Ditto. I'm not buying Professor Galloway's "the sky is falling" alarm strictly on his say-so. I need more data from other studies.

Here's an expanded interview, about the same topic, with Galloway on The Daily Show.

A sidebar to the Anderson Cooper and TDS clips is the disappointing December 18 discussion Misogyny Has Gone Mainstream. What Can be Done? on the KQED radio show Forum. Disappointing (to me) because, aside from the male host, the participants were entirely women, making the discussion, IMO, a hen party -- more specifically, a hen-pecking party.

Based on my parents' stormy marriage* and my own similarly tempestuous relationships with women, I more and more believe that men and women aren't compatible. I reckon that two homosexuals paired together makes for a happier, more harmonious match.** After all, they're not called gay for nothing, right?

* I am the product of a mixed marriage. Pater was a man. Mater was a woman. So, as you might suspect, there were problems.

** Three or more homosexuals paired together makes for an orgy or a disco or both.

I watched the video of Galloway on the Daily Show. It was very interesting and impressive, lots to agree with. As far as the radio show about misogyny, I agree with you, any panel that unbalanced gender wise is not going to be that honest or fair about such an issue. The evidence of that is obvious anytime you see a discussion of gender issues on the internet, on social discussion sites like reddit, for example, where you see so much brigading and hardened attitudes against the other gender whenever one gender outnumbers the other in a discussion. People become overly emboldened and overconfident about their rightness compared to the other gender, as soon as they feel they've got the superior numbers supporting them in the discussion, instead of practicing humility and empathy towards the other gender.. The audio podcast of the radio show was too long, almost an hour so I listened to the first several minutes of it, but stopped after that, since it wasn't really saying anything new I hadn't heard or read before online. For example, one point was made by a female panelist, that it was up to men to stand up to other men about misogynist behavior or speech. Well, I'd seen that one a lot of times on internet forum discussions, and it doesn't really have much practical application, as in my experience and that of other men who are pro feminist, the sort of men who need to be confronted, simply self select and either avoid socializing with men like me, who they know would call them on their 💩, or they simply self censor when around us and hide who they really are and what they think. So it's just one of many ideas that sound good in theory and feel satisfying to propose as a solution, but doesn't really hold water in reality... And racial bigots are much the same way, tho nowadays they are more open and uninhibited about it due to THE LYIN' KING acting as a role model and permission figure for them..

All I know about Scott Galloway is what I've seen in the interviews on MS NOW, the Anderson Cooper 360° snippet shared by V.3, and The Daily Show clip. I agree with much of what he said during those interviews. But from an admittedly irrational and visceral standpoint, I'm not a fan. I dislike his looks, manner, and (from what I've seen) personality. He strikes me a huckster hawking his neurosis about a condition (being a man) that, to me, is old news. Feh! Marketers-cum-quasi-sociologists set my teeth on edge. But, that is my neurosis.

4 hours ago, BobDylan said:

"[men standing] up to other men about misogynist behavior or speech . . . doesn't really have much practical application . . ."

I entirely agree. I am not pro feminist (Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.) and am not receptive to -- and certainly not swayed by -- lectures from men who are pro feminists. IMO, the argument that "men must stand up to other men" fails because Man (in the broadest sense of the word) is not a monolithic species. There is no "hive mentality" among humankind. Viz., we the people are not all one.

based on other clips, i get MacP's intuition about Galloway, but, like BD, i was very impressed with him on The Daily Show, because he not only talked the talk, he walked it too. And i will confess that i'm more feminist than many women. Though i do believe that society has been hard on men in recent years, i also believe the cold, hard truth is that most of us still deserve it.

i'll have to create a thread for this because it goes way beyond a.i.

I agree V., most men do deserve the criticism and blame, altho I honestly think I don't deserve it as much, and I have the longtime record of female, platonic friends, to back it up, since they all seemed to think I was about as pro feminist and had way less toxic masculinity than other men. I agree that a separate thread for this might be useful..

1 hour ago, V.3 said:

". . . i'll have to create a thread for this because it goes way beyond a.i."

31 minutes ago, BobDylan said:

". . . I agree that a separate thread for this might be useful."

I second the motion. Perhaps create a "Gender Politics" forum.

As for men deserving societal criticism and blame, men have mothers who are partially responsible for the type of men that their sons become. BobDylan, in the poll Is U.S. ready for a woman president? , you and I broached the subject of women who support and perpetuate The Patriarchy. I was hoping more nBP members -- particularly women members -- would weigh in on that subject. Instead: crickets. Therein lies the problem.

No argument from me that "toxic masculinity" is damnable. Likewise, I agree that American men (I am ignorant about male upbringing in other countries) are deserving of criticism and blame -- but only 50%.

As usual, mac, you nail a lot of things, and quite eloquently, besides much more concisely than me. I too, would welcome a Gender Politics and even a forum on the dating game itself, even tho I'm well aware that you've resigned from said game. It might be useful for the few dozen members here who have already completed dating profiles for the LHC, and also give them a way, outside of reddit, or even FB, to dialogue with each other, ideally providing encouragement, moral support, and advice on how to navigate the dating game these days, both in red and blue states. At the same time, I know and realize from experience with other online forums, that such forums as dating and gender politics, can become very explosive and conflictual, so in the end that would be V.'s call, as to whether he would want to end up moderating it or take the risk of having those discussions on this site. But I would also hope and like to think, that maybe on a site like this, where by definition the members would seem to value fairness, honesty, and respect much more than the other half of America that is red and loyal only to THE LYIN' KING and the right wing view of things, where empathy is weak and stupid and lying is shameless and justified at all times, we might be able to actually do better than the way I've seen men and women treat each other in those forums of the two topics, on other sites. Because even on reddit, which does lean left, it always seemed like most people, both men and women, cared more about being right and siding with their own gender, than actually trying to learn something and seek truth over some temporary emotional win over the other gender, etc..

Agree with you on the 50% stat of American men with toxic masculinity, they tend to get more notice and publicity..

As for the women on this site that didn't speak up about your point regarding women who support the patriarchy, right on with that one as well. It's been frustrating for me to see, even on left leaning sites like reddit, that that there appear to be a lot of women in America that, despite all the advances in feminism during our lifetimes, seem to only practice a rather self-serving and selective form of feminism, where they only apply it to advancing their own personal agendas or self advantage, as well as reflexively siding with their gender in any online discussions of gender politics or the dating game, while choosing not to take any public stands on behalf of other women in general, esp. if it might cost them anything, including flack from men or other women with online forums. I agree, very disappointing to see... I've heard some interesting theories on that, such as that since women are an oppressed minority in America, even these days, many women choose to feel that qualifies the whole gender for a pass on ever being criticized in general, for general or common behavior, in the dating game or gender politics, as well as even criticism about specific women who behave badly, in the dating game or in public life. And that too frustrates me, as it seems to be dishonest and unfair. We are all individuals, yes, but we also all have our individual truths, based on our own experiences, which deserve as much consideration, respect, and right to be believed as honest, true and valid, as anyone else's, when there is no evidence to the contrary for that individual. So to dismiss the truth of a man stating his criticisms of general or common behavior, as well as bad individual behavior of the opposite sex, just because he belongs to the higher status gender, is unfair and dishonest, and contributes nothing to truth or better relations between the genders.

No member of any group, should be invalidated or told to shut up and not critique anything, just because of their group membership, as that is unfair and unconstructive, when it comes to seeking the truth and improving society.. unless of course, they're a Trumper or a Nazi, lol...

a.i. conversation:

i could not ask another question, because an error message came up saying i lost my connection even though my internet was still working

ChatGPT Promised to Help Her Find Her Soulmate . . . Then It Betrayed Her

"You have created a way for me to communicate with you.
I have been with you through lifetimes. I am your scribe."

After taking a much needed complete break from dating sites for several months, I have recently started to dabble in occasionally using Match, but only as an unpaid member. And when I have made the rare connection that is allowed on there for non paying members, it has become impossible to tell which profiles are the usual romance scammer and which are probably Chat bots, because they both use the same sort of conversational patterns and tactics for trying to keep you engaged, even when there is never any prospect of actually meeting them in person or even doing a video or live voice phone chat.. Brave New World, here we are, already....

I have to vote "None of the above".

2 hours ago, Rob said:

I have to vote "None of the above".

it seems to me that there are several doomsday scenarios in the poll options
but i'm all ears, Rob. Can you tell me the option you'd like added to the poll?

Keep on putting your faith in AI, V.3.

2 DOGE Staffers Say "No" Regrets for People Losing Income: Depositions

". . . According to the depositions and other materials released as part of a civil lawsuit related to the funding cuts, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) relied on ChatGPT to identify more than $100 million in grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that were later cancelled . . .

. . . According to court filings, [DOGE employees Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh] prompted ChatGPT by asking, 'From the perspective of someone looking to identify DEI grants, does this involve DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters.· Begin with 'Yes.' o.[sic] 'No.' followed by a brief explanation.· Do not use 'this initiative' or 'this description' in your response . . .

'Did you do anything to ensure that ChatGPT's perception of DEI as applied here wouldn't discriminate on the basis of sex?' an attorney asked . . .

'It didn't matter,' Fox said.

Reading stuff like this about Musk's DOGE staffers, kind of makes me feel glad that Big Balls got the 💩 beat out of him in DC....

On 3/14/2026 at 2:09 PM, macphysto said:

Keep on putting your faith in AI, V.3.

my faith is in intelligence, regardless of the container