Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spivak | Hacker News Reader

I've actually seen one of the effects of this among my single friends who have observed that conservatives now put "non-political" on their dating profiles because if they put conservative they get no matches. But since that's obvious now non-political is "okay, so conservative." The best part about this is that one of my single friends is conservative herself and won't even match with conservative men.

I think it's great honestly. Women might not hold a lot of political power directly but mate selection is a powerful motivator for change.

View on HN

These graphs terrify me because while women may have a choice for partner selection at this time we know it's a slippery slopr towards a highly conservative society where women have almost every choice removed. We have this today in the removal of abortion rights, and the extreme behavior is exhibited in niche communities such as Orthodox Judaism, rural Amish-type communities where women are not educated, and, increasingly, evangelic communities in the developed world, most visible in South Korea So, to see men heading to the conservative side of the dance floor is a warning to those of us who thought that the fight for liberty is a one-, time event.

Preach. This kind of shift is one of my worries too but. But since this isn't a "movement" in any real sense and it's just individual women choosing for themselves the tide is gonna be what it's gonna be and we have to deal with that fallout.

No movement? You don't seem to study SK gender relations do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_(movement)

https://www.thecut.com/2023/03/4b-movement-feminism-south-ko...

> because if they put conservative they get no matches

Why is political affiliation on a dating app?

> one of my single friends is conservative herself and won't even match with conservative men

Have you asked her why?

To me, someone proudly putting a conservative political affiliation on a dating profile raises safety issues not related to their political views, but to their choice to put them there as a marker of their identity.

> Women might not hold a lot of political power directly

Wat.

> Why is political affiliation on a dating app?

For the majority, different political views are a dealbreaker in the USA.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-marriag...

IDK, it's just one of the basic things that on your profile. It includes stuff like height, age, if you smoke, if you drink, your religious affiliation, your profession. And since it's such a strong signal, folks will unmatch on that alone, it seems like a good question to determine compatibility.

> Have you asked her why?

Oh absolutely, she talks at length about it. She started out not really caring about political affiliation because she's a conservative with a friend group of mostly liberals and can get along with anyone but then all the conservative men instant dq'd themselves either in the chat or on the first date by demonstrating a quote "frightening lack of respect for women."

> Wat.

I know! It's messed up. We really should do something about it. I mean look at this [1] in 2023 women just got to the 30% mark in legislative positions.

https://pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/the-data-on...

> mate selection is a powerful motivator for change.

As someone smarter than me probably said - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Or, in layman's terms, this is pure, unfiltered bullshit.

In truth, politics is not front and center of people's existence.

In the US it's absolutely a dealbreaker. From MattGaiser [1]

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-marriag...

> In truth, politics is not front and center of people's existence.

In a world where everything is politicized, this cannot be correct. It's just described differently.

We're not in a world where everything is politicized. We're in a world where a bunch of very loud people politicize everything. That's not the same. In particular, a large number of people wish the "politicize everything" people would just shut up and go away and stop shoving their insanity at the rest of us.

I wish for many things. So far, this has not had a material effect on reality. But I will keep trying.

Please give me one example of a thing that is not politicized. And that some not-insubstantial percent of the population holds an opinion or belief that is truly their own vs something tribal and politicized.

I struggled to come up with an example before I made my previous post. Maybe you can do better.

The car I drive is not politicized. (For some people it is. They choose a pickup or an EV to signal that they belong to a tribe. I just pick a car because I want something reliable that meets my needs. 18-year-old Toyota Camry, if you're wondering.)

My to-do list for this weekend is not politicized, even though preparations for doing my taxes is on the list. My taxes are not politicized - I pay them regardless of what administration is in power, and I feel pretty much the same about paying them.

What I'm having for lunch is not politicized. It's just stuff that I like, that was pretty easy to put in a lunch sack.

My wife likes watching birds. I like watching trains. I don't think either of those are politicized.

What programming languages I like are not politicized.

And so it goes, through topic after topic that makes up my life.

I really am less a sheep than you think. I actually don't always agree with my tribe, and my tribe is less political than you think. (Even what I think of science is not politicized, and I don't fit neatly into a "tribe" on the topic. And I deplore the tendency to politicize science.)

"Everything is political" only if you view everything through a political lens. I don't. It's a really crummy, narrow lens to have to look at everything through.

You give some interesting examples. But you acknowledge that some of those choices, made differently, could be politicized.

That's the issue. Choose culturally "ordinary" and you're good. Choose "unexpected" and you take your chances. Among reasonable people, your chances are good. There are a lot of unreasonable people out there.

The original question was "why is political affiliation asked on a dating app?". To me, the answer is simple: life is highly politicized and while individuals will always have some nuance in their beliefs, stereotypes are real and legitimate as filtering criteria.

I do not mean to imply that humans cannot be better. Just that they frequently are not.

I did not call you a sheep.

If you live in Twitter and Reddit, maybe so.

At some point in the past I moderated a decently sized subreddit (~100k subscribers). At the time it seemed like everyone really cared a lot about politics.

I made the conscious decision to step out of it, and shutting off my online presence. Live a bit more in the real world, so to say.

Turns out in real life, people care a lot less about politics than in online cesspools.

[FWIW: I don't read Reddit or Twitter or any of the rest. HN is as close to online humanity as I can tolerate]

> Turns out in real life, people care a lot less about politics than in online cesspools.

Sure, if you ask it that way.

But if you ask them how they feel about almost anything, their opinion will be shaped by the politicization of music, sports, food, weather, child rearing, education, the economy, their town, the helicopter on Mars, etc.

These things are politicized and the way people think about them is not authentic, but political.

Not all individual people, not all individual cases. But anyone who pretends that politics is not front and center in their belief systems is either deluding themselves, or truly exceptional. Probably the former.

There is a huge distance in between "my opinions and worldview is informed, to an extent, by the political climate" and "I live and breathe politics all the time, and it is front and center of every discussion I have with everyone"

I have friends on every corner of the political spectrum. My wife is a lot more conservative than I am. This was never an issue. There is a huge amount of topics where our interests intersect anyway. "There is so much more in the universe".

Right. Because we are privileged and reasonable people!

Privileged by the fact that our existence, and our choices, do not raise the ire of our community. Some of our choices are tailored to fit that community of course.

Reasonable because we believe that the existence of others, and their choices, are not things we need to have opinions on, unless they are directly affective of our well-being.

But this is not true for everyone. Outside of our quadrant, things get complicated quickly.

Some people do not have the privilege of being culturally unexciting. And some people do not come by reasonableness naturally.

I'm not saying you can't go through your day without thinking politically. I'm saying that there is a politicization angle on everything except the most mundane. And outside of our quadrant, this can create real life-affective friction.

And, back to the topic, this is why they put "political affiliation" on dating apps.

Yep, it's easy to be politically disinterested or not really care about the differences between different parties when your interests and way of living are protected by both of them and whoever is in office has very little effect on your life.

And it's not a bad thing or admonishment, it's a fantastic privilege that's gotta be great for your mental health.

That's a very big assumption, that the reason politics is not front and center in my life if because I am somehow privileged and that those in power protect my interests.

In truth, I am an immigrant from a poor country. I depend on a Visa to stay in my country of residence. I am an ethnical minority.

What is good for your mental health is exercising some detachment. Life is too short to waste it on things beyond your power. I prefer to focus on how I can improve my own life and the lives of those I love instead, and to spend my free time in things that make me happy.

Maybe my privilege is having the wisdom to differentiate the things I can change from the things I can't.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing, I'm in no way advocating getting involved in just random politics for no reason. But if you need to actively participate in politics -- campaigning, fundraising, testifying at hearings, writing or meeting with your legislators, calling your local paper and giving interviews, collecting signatures because of policy you need or policy that is going to meaningfully harm you then you don't have the privilege to detach from those issues unless you already have other people who will stand up for you.

But obsessively following news or yelling at no one in particular on the internet about issues, I wouldn't bother either.

> Maybe my privilege is having the wisdom to differentiate the things I can change from the things I can't.

This is indeed a privilege which is available to many people who do not take advantage of it!

But it's also not available to everyone. Perhaps more relevantly, it is not the present case for everyone.

I agree with you in how I live my life, and I'm fortunate to be able to do that. Obviously I don't know you but presumably you chose to immigrate to a place (or a specific location in that place) where you are able to live a fairly safe life.

Some people are not there, and are not able to escape where they are. For them, the politicization of everything is existential.

...and some others politicize things because they are unhappy and hurting the people they think are hurting them makes them feel better. Or so it seems. All very unhealthy, and yes I'm speaking from an American perspective. We are not known for our strong and stable mental health.

You'll be disappointed by that power.

Apparently, millions of young men have simply checked out. They're not in school and missing from the work force. Another statistic I came across: 45% of young men (18-24) have never approached a girl in their life.

They're isolating themselves. They're not bettering themselves, or competing. They're out.

I mean this sincerely, what's the alternative? This isn't a situation where women are organizing or just being spiteful and passing up perfectly good datable men to play political games, these men are genuinely considered undatable.

Do we draw straws?

Have these men considered self improvement (including having less abhorrent views according to the other gender) in order to become datable?

Everyone makes their choices. If 45% of men are choosing to drop out of ever having a relationship without even trying, maybe that’s on them.

We have to be accurate about the statistic. It said that 45% had never approached a girl/woman. Not that 45% is permanently and actively avoiding having a relationship by choice.

For sure they should become more active, but there may be societal trends contributing to the statistic: increased isolation, limited shared spaces, dating largely moving to apps, poor or no role models, fear of rejection, etc.

I don't have an alternative, I was just sharing an observation. It was implied that this group of men is "forced" to better themselves or else be locked out of dating and family formation.

A growing amount of men go for the "or else" part. So it doesn't look like a powerful motivator for change.

Social sciences, multiple dating sites have confirmed a major change in the social fabric.

Lets go with south korea as they are the worst off: https://amj.kma.re.kr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&conte...

The implication that you arent getting dates because of politics isn't true at all. But I'm not blaming dating sites at all, that's not the cause of the problem.

>I think it's great honestly. Women might not hold a lot of political power directly but mate selection is a powerful motivator for change.

Women hold as much political power as men, and men are becoming more conservative. The 'change' is toward more conservative. That 'powerful motivator' is the opposite of your prediction.

What is happening in reality?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/05/the-rise-...

But this has a consequence. Your supports from family are less. Your ability to be a mother at 30+ vs 20+ is a huge difference.

Men don't have the same drive as women. The proverbial ticking clock.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9942082/

Women are historical record highs level of depressed. Social science calls it the 'female happiness paradox'

But it's not a paradox at all. It's kind of outrageous they label it a paradox.

From the study:

>Across a number of studies, there is increasing evidence that men’s wellbeing has been improving relative to women’s whether that is measured using negative or positive affect variables and the gap has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns.

Men are doing BETTER.

That 'powerful motivator' is the opposite of what you think.

Many women will profess outwardly and even on their tinder profiles (increasingly the majority way people date) a strong preference for a partner who is politically egalitarian yet in their actual mate selection they will act like eugenicist fascists. "6 feet, 6 inches, 6 figures". It should be no one's surprise when the average height and phallic size of men continues to grow over time, especially throughout the western world, given how strong that the selection signals are from women.

This is scary for those with a progressive world view, since conservatives try to monopolize masculinity. "Working out" as a man, being a "gym bro" etc are things that are lightly conservatively coded. Effeminate egalitarian nerds in American media are depicted constantly as being physically dominated by authoritarian and tyrannical bullies. Women will increasingly find conservative politics enticing by it's transgressive nature despite outwardly professing preferences against it. This is why black men in clubs tend to do well with white women despite dating app data showing systemic dating discrimination against black men.

> conservative politics enticing by it's transgressive nature

Yup, nothing could be more transgressive than (checks notes) having the political views of your great grandparents’ generation.

In a world where your great grandparent has double the testosterone rates, more than double the sperm counts, and significantly better fertility rates than their young peers, I stand by what I said unironically. Chances are also good that their great grandparents were getting laid far more often too!

Also, there's been a lot written even in other liberal communities admitting that modern conservatism has essentially replaced the old "counterculture" that was previously held by hippies. This is because of a mainstreamification of "being woke" and of related ideology. Today, an honest to god "live in the forest off the grid type" who tries to live a conservative rugged man ideal is peak counterculture.

It just occurred to me that it may have something to do with the "crystal generation" thing: young people today are less tolerant and unwilling to compromise.

My wife is quite "conservative " with right leaning values (for mexican) while I myself am pretty socialist/left leaning. But we leaned to live and enjoy our differences and opinions.

So that's the thing, in the US "right leaning" and "actually votes Republican and actively supports the Republican Party" are night and day differences. Because moderate conservatives (or libertarian-conservatives) who don't care for Republican's weird crusades against abortion, trans people, blue lives matter, anti-vaxx bullshit, climate change denial and whatever the next not-actually-realted-to-conservatism thing is and just want regular-ass conservative politics a la Romney, McCain, DeWine are totally alienated.

Among my friends and coworkers those right leaning people have just started calling themselves liberal but not progressive and voting Democrat because that's now actually closer to their views than Republicans and they don't want to be associated with MAGA.

No offense, but could it be that you aren't as extreme or different from each other as you think? It's not like there weren't plenty of extremist young men willing to die and kill for socialist or fascist ideology during World War 2 or the Spanish Civil War; or, going back further, for the various reactionary and radical ideologies during the French Revolution. Perhaps your generation was an outlier in being less extreme.

Women have always held a particular power. Try reading Lysistrata

That's a fun story but anytime people manipulate others using sex, it's making explicit that there are power imbalances.

You’re confusing unbalanced with unequal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com