> The black women left behind find that potential partners of the same race are scarce, while men, who face an abundant supply of potential mates, don’t need to compete as hard to find one. As a result, Mr. Charles said, “men seem less likely to commit to romantic relationships, or to work hard to maintain them.”
Interesting, I never thought about this side-effect of mass incarceration. Another aggravating factor in a repeating cycle?
I remember reading a hypothesis of why many middle eastern countries generate so many young angry jihadists is that most of the young men had never had a stable interactions with women in their youth. Most grew up in socially conservative environments and missed out on the stabilizing effect of having relationships with women, not having a sexual output, not having reasons to stay alive for a girl at home, or even missing out on having a female perspective on things (women are arguably less war-prone than men).
Middle eastern young males obviously experience a different social environment than black men do but I'm curious if stable relationships with women really do lead to less violence/crime by males? Or is that merely hopeful thinking by social conservatives?
The idea that boys need exposure to women before adulthood, with the exception of their mother, is a relatively modern one. The extent to which the modern west mixes the sexes through education and other social activities is unprecedented, so the Middle East is not nearly alone in this respect.
Of course, things change in adulthood, and if young Middle Eastern men who would normally be entering stable relationships with women are prevented from doing so, I can imagine how that would enable angry jihadists. But at that age, the blame probably lies with other social/economic factors and less with their family unit.
> The idea that boys need exposure to women before adulthood, with the exception of their mother, is a relatively modern one. The extent to which the modern west mixes the sexes through education and other social activities is unprecedented, so the Middle East is not nearly alone in this respect.
That's true, but if the prosperity and peace of the modern west also are relatively modern and unusual, perhaps the exposure to women has a positive effect.
At the same time, it seems like marriage is much more costly and difficult for men to achieve in much of the Middle East/South Asia. So you still have a larger population of unmarried men without many marriage prospects.
The major restraining factor on young men in a village or tribal setting was always the rest of the village. When the demographics became unbalanced (war, famine) then young gangs were always to be feared (Peter Pans lost boys would not have been cute)
We are fortunate in having overcome hunger in 4/5ths of the world - but it has left a lot of time on people's hands compared to a hunter gather lifestyle and a lot of unsupervised time similarly
That said - holy moley! this is insane!
But does this work for other sexual choice communities? I suppose there must have been class divides where "working class" men were more likely to go to jail so changing the sexual choice landscape? Gay men?! Ex-military? Prior to public transport was there geographic boundaries? Education?
This is a fascinating subject - why are black women limiting themselves to a reduced choice of black men when presumably other races are open? What is it that makes that choice / boundaries? Clearly parental type must have a big impact, but what else?
This is an indictment of US post-slavery culture to be sure, but thinking about it it is massively wider in scope.
> We are fortunate in having overcome hunger in 4/5ths of the world - but it has left a lot of time on people's hands compared to a hunter gather lifestyle and a lot of unsupervised time similarly
Actually, some studies have shown that hunter-gatherers have much more free time than we do. Our wants grow more quickly than our technology can satisfy them.
But this "free time" came at the cost of constantly having to scavenge for more food, move to new areas, fight for survival, etc.. I see primitivists hawking this on hacker news quite a lot now, but you can post that link a hundred times, it still won't make 10k BC any more appealing than 2015.
It turns out that after you feed, shelter, and clothe people, they still want more stuff. What a fucking surprise. But at least I'm not starving, freezing, naked, bleeding out on the plains after being gored by a rhino or squashed by a mammoth.
"Is Marriage for White People?" attempts to answer that question. As I remember it, the main answer was that black women don't want to date outside their race.
But - why? Because their fathers were black and so they associate positive feeling with that colour? Why skin colour? Why not height or body type or behaviour?
What about social pressure (you are a "race traitor" fords ting non blacks). Is it an anti white thing? Is the proportion of Hispanic dating higher? What about comparing across cultures - is the incidence of dating cross race lower than in say the UK?
The fact that we are raising race to its own singular cause for this sort of marriage-limiter shows how much race issues have a grip on our societies, but it's interesting to think around the subject.
Still would be interested to know how one can find a epidemiological "natural" experiment to solve this.
Race is simply a salient category in American life, that shapes people's social experiences in a wide variety of ways.
It's also pretty ordinary for people to prefer mates that have a broadly similar life experience and perspective as themselves. It's easier to sustain a relationship when you have more common ground.
I read that article, and articles like it. They all leave out one thing, and I'll get hammered for stating this, and it's only my hummable opinion.
As much as people want to to homogenize the sexes, their are differences in factors that determine desirability.
Powerful women(degrees, income, position in society, etc.) are judged differently
in my surrounding(I said in my surroundings, antidotal, don't kill me); than powerful men.
Are a lot of women are attracted to powerful men--yes, for the majority. Unless the man has horrid genes, and even then they line up. The man with the biggest cave still seems to attract to most--especially later in life.
It works in the opposite direction for women. I have never met a man(except in scripts, on t.v.) that judges women on degrees, or wealth, or status in society. I have never heard a man say, "I find women in power/authority sexy!" I don't know why. I hope it changes. I just think we forget about millions of years of biology--men are looking for good genes, a kind disposition--maybe someone to raise the spawn?
Yes, it's wrong. I'm just tired of hearing "Why is she single--she is so accomplished?" Yes, I hope it changes.
Go ahead kill me. There's too many examples to list, and it's politically incorrect to even talk about. Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
It's not offensive, it's just yet another example of "every anecdote I have from this specific culture supports X!! Why don't we just admit that X is clearly biological and not a property of culture at all!??!"
The OkCupid research shouldn't be presented as some universal scientific fact. It doesn't account for socioeconomic backgrounds for one, nor does it account for country of origin. Having lived in Africa, Europe and the US, it's clear that interracial dating carries much more historical baggage in the US than it does in Europe and Africa. It's also probably clear to most people in the US, that acceptance of interracial relationships has changed markedly in the past decade alone. A second OkCupid study in 2019 would very likely show significantly different results.
The OKCupid analyis is based on US dating data...right? Why would anyone try to analogize that to universal human behavior, rather than taking it as a description of the situation in the US?
One thing that was striking to me was the map showing the male:female ratio among the black population in the US. Without using any actual statistical tools, it's apparent that areas with a higher black population also have fewer men for every woman.
I remember reading somewhere (probably here) that the same effect is shown in areas with heavily skewed male/female ratios in general. That in places with a lot more men than women both men and women converge on wanting a long term relationship, but in places with a lot more women than men - men would typically prefer not having a relationship i.e. more single mothers in NYC than on the west coast.
There was also a subtext idea about women (in general) being competitive and 'slut shaming' as an evolved mechanism to collude with each other and push the sexual availability/access down in order force men to have to invest more time/effort/resources into a relationship. I'll try and see if I can find whatever it was - the idea was cool (if not obvious) and the unintentional collusion part didn't occur to me.
There's probably a lot at play though it's hard to make any real statements about evolved behavior outside of cultural pressure and without a lot of time to look at things.
in places with a lot more men than women both men and women converge on wanting a long term relationship, but in places with a lot more women than men
There's also the narrative that places where men outnumber women, men become increasingly competitive and violent towards women and each other. An example is any blue collar "boom" town like North Dakota's fracking industry.
In china where men outnumber women due to family preference for a male heir, it has resulted in straight men having to compete with each other on an economic status basis to attract women, what happens in north Dakota is not a universal phenomenon.
This is vastly overstated. Historically there are 1.05 male births per 1 female birth without any technical sex selection going on. Which for a population the size of China works out to an extra ~33 million men. Interestingly in the US and globally men of every age but ~10 years old die more frequently than men so older woman significantly out number older men. It's a fairly significant gap which is one of the reasons this chart looks so shocking. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88_fig4.png
Roughly stated the younger the population the more men you end up with. Generally this is balanced by woman having shorter 'breaks' between relationships until old age when women significantly out number men. See: 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/Fi...
China has a ratio of 112:100 men to women at birth due to gender selectivity. It's that women outlive men which brings things into 'balance' if you include all ages.
Never the less, you see increased bride imports from impoverished SEAsian neighbors. There is also great pressure on the males to show how meritorious and deserving they are economically, in 'attracting' a mate. I say attracting in quotes, because it's often more disproportionately economic than romantic attraction.
Thanks. Looks like most of the data is anecdotal at the moment but it's something to keep an eye on and see how/if it pans out. For the people involved.. I hope it's a blip and not a trend.
This dynamic has always frightened me about China's "one child" generation coming of age. Instead of a group of disaffected Jihadists, you have a large and influential political force in an increasingly belligerent and powerful nation.
I'd argue that China's belligerence is lower now than it has been. They've moved from a very communist that strongly distrusted and arguably even hated the West, to a semi-capitalist one who mostly just wants to compete with the West (and makes oodles of $$$ selling to us).
The US has been drum-beating against China a lot recently, but frankly that seems more about the US losing in the "trade wars" than anything specific China did.
China's neighbors would likely disagree about China only wanting to trade. They're very aggressively laying claim to large swaths of sea around the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia that clearly do not belong to them. Annexing water territory that does not belong to them, is no different than China taking Tibet by force on the basis that they proclaim it belongs to them. As such it's clear that plenty of their extreme belligerence is still intact.
In what way would you say those terroritories do not belong to China, or any other country in the region? Or better yet, what makes even places like Canton, Shanghai even belong to China? (Keep in mind I'm not saying these lands do or do not actually belong to China, but I'm merely asking under what grouds do you make these claims)
> In what way would you say those terroritories do not belong to China, or any other country in the region?
All I know is that when one country wants to take what another country currently has, people die. It's the slaughter of impressionable young nationalists in war that I object to, not which country has suzerain over which scrap of land.
Hitler seemed to take Austria with very little if any bloodshed. Even in retrospect resisting might have been worse for the average Austrian. No one was coming to reinforce the Austrians if they resisted Hitler's annexation.
It doesn't really address the question at hand but I do agree with you, especially considering the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
> not which country has suzerain over which scrap of land
Personally, I don't care much for which country "owns" which scrap of land either, but usually it is the very same passionate nationalists that you referred to that disagree with us. Which is why, I've asked the original question, with what right does any country own a certain piece of land, or not own certain piece of land.
China is involved with territorial disputes with a large number of neighbors. China claims almost all of the South China Sea though it Nine-dotted line[0] map. There have been a large number of disputes that have resulted from that[1]. Examples are China's East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ECS AIDZ)[2]. China has threatened to take action against aircraft that don't identify themselves
or obey China's orders[2]. There are many more example in the in-depth The Atlantic article "China's Dangerous Game"[3].
> China is involved with territorial disputes with a large number of neighbors
To clarify, China is militarizing long-standing territorial disputes.
Also note that there is no risk of military conflict between any of the neighbors or between the neighbors and the U.S., despite territorial or other disputes. Vietnam and the Philippines aren't threatening each other, nor are Japan and South Korea, Japan and Vietnam, or any of those countries and the U.S. But almost everyone seems to be in a militarized dispute with China.
I think (may not be) he's talking about the fact that China's male-to-female ratio is just under 1.2, which is insane for a country their size. Lots and lots of single unhappy men in a society where one is pressured to marry ASAP does not make for a happy society.
Powerful is of course true. Increasingly belligerent was the point I was responding to. If you look at China's recent history, they're a lot more West-friendly now than at any point since WWII.
It's not been a good look for China historically either. Particularly around the fall of the Ming dynasty, there was a large male-female imbalance, and low and behold, in some of the places where that ratio was worst, there were some of the most destructive of the peasant rebellions.
Their increased activity in the South China Sea is a counterpoint to that. I don't know about belligerence, exactly, but they're certainly being more assertive about some aggressive territorial claims.
That's more complex than it appears. As others have pointed out, many of China's neighbors feel it has really stepped up its territorial attitude lately, eg Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines to name but 3. Part of the reason that the government is pushing the trans-pacific partnership (which does not include China) is to get the other SE Asian countries on a more competitive economic footing by opening up access to our markets, so as to put a brake on China's rush towards being a hegemonic power.
The Chinese engage in cyber-espionage operations against their "peaceful" trading partners, rattle sabers over Taiwan and various islands, and so forth.
I know of two very large cyber espionage incidents that can be traced to individuals in China. It may or may not be government sanctioned, but the evidence that it is is somewhat compelling. For one, the hackers only work during business hours. Secondly, the tools used had a very specific signature of state sponsored espionage.
The #1 belligerent nation on Earth now is uncontestedly the USA and this is not because Americans are belligerent and aggressive by nature but because it happens that the globalists and the Elite made that country their HQ conducting their business operations out of it.
The #1 belligerent nation on Earth's power is unassailable while buttressed by Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea and others, no illuminati necessary.
You don't have to believe in the illuminati to believe that large global entities (including both corporationsand nations) will work to protect their interests. Many large nations (including China) and most large corporations have a vested interest in seeing the US do well, so their investments and interests that are tied to the US do well.
A world where the US faces sudden economic problems is a world that sees economic problems on their own horizon.
Except they're not "coming of age"; they already have. Enforcement of the one-child policy started in 1980. The first children born under it are turning 35 these days.
I think your worry is a very reasonable one, but it has not become a reality. I wonder why not.
The one child policy has not always and everywhere been enforce with full power. You get a certain buffer effect from men getting a younger female companion: measured in person years, you'll have more single-men-years than single-women-years this way.
> why many middle eastern countries generate so many young angry jihadists
This is akin to wondering why Europeans generated so many young angry crusaders. The term jihadists denotes a religion and a region. Its associated with Middle Eastern countries by definition. Angry young militants from other religions and regions are given different names.
If we look at objective measurements of violence, like murder rate by country [1], we can see that the Middle East is not particularly violent, rather its on par with America. It is harder to find meaningful information on militarism. We do know that the Middle East was host to 3 of the 4 world conflicts that killed more than 10,000 people in 2014 [2]. All of these conflicts have included significant foreign and local involvement. Their causes are complex. In my opinion, they are driven by a desire to control the world's most valuable resource (Oil!) not by cultural factors.
Finally, it is worth noting that Americans use the word Jihad to mean holy war, but in the Middle East the word does not have the same violent meaning [3].
Yes, but why Europe produced so many angry young crusaders is also an interesting question that touches on gender and family issues. IIRC the Norman practice of dividing an estate among all surviving sons led, after a few generations, to large populations of land-hungry armed horsemen on tiny estates. Thus the Normans exported mercenary and conquering armies all over Europe, starting with England through the Crusades.
I agree that it is interesting to wonder why certain cultures are more violent and militant than others. My points, more clearly:
1. That # of Jihadist does not indicate how violent and militant a culture is because it is not a cross-cultural term.
2. That cross cultural measures of murder rates do not indicate that the Middle East is home to particularly violent cultures.
3. That the Middle East is home to lots of military action, but that it is produced by foreign and local interests and can be explained by financial motives rather than cultural ones.
> I remember reading a hypothesis of why many middle eastern countries generate so many young angry jihadists is that most of the young men had never had a stable interactions with women in their youth. Most grew up in socially conservative environments and missed out on the stabilizing effect of having relationships with women, not having a sexual output, not having reasons to stay alive for a girl at home, or even missing out on having a female perspective on things (women are arguably less war-prone than men).
This has been my experience in San Francisco, thanks to gender imbalances
The main reason for disaffected middle eastern young men is:
1) lack of career prospects, especially for university graduates
2) because of #1, young men cannot afford a matrimonial house and ceremony, so can't get laid (adultery is a capital crime.)
That's why 72 virgins in the afterlife is very appealing ... because they aren't getting any in this life.
I know this is treading off-topic, but interestingly, "lefty wacko uber-progressive" Seattle (I put that in quotes as it's not my thoughts, but some of the commenters found on The Seattle Times would likely describe it as such) has the highest percentage of nuclear families in the 50 largest cities in the U.S.
I think you and your parent comment may be using two different definitions of "nuclear" though. One definition is the traditional mom-dad-2.3 kids arrangement, but a broader and equally valid definition can include polygamy, gay parents with a surrogate, lesbian parents with a sperm donor, couples where the mom and dad have split and started new families but still have kids in common, and a million other combinations. The most important positive factor seems to be stability, which is easier to maintain when your peer group is accepting of whatever weird arrangement you have. That acceptance is a strengthening factor for the traditional nuclear family as well as the non-traditional combinations.
"Nuclear" should mean that newly married couples form a new household rather than integrating into the household of the extended family.
Why the nuclear rather than the extended family would be considered important for social stability is anyone's guess. We live in an incredibly atomized society that values personal freedom and autonomy over interdependence and social connection, but that doesn't mean "stability".
The key isn't the marriage rate, it's the prevalence of intact families. Scandinavians don't marry, but they do live together and raise children together. The prevalence of intact families (meaning children living with both biological parents) is higher in Scandinavia than it is in the US, even though the marriage rate is lower.
I don't know that people necessarily have to be married and stay married to make the nuclear family work, even if that is the typical manifestation. If two unmarried people have children and contribute to a stable life, then they still are a strong nuclear family even if not bound by marriage. Similarly, if a divorcee pairs up with someone else and doesn't get married, the children can get a de-facto stepparent.
I'm going to see if I can scare up some data regarding families in Scandinavia, but I don't think your point necessarily contradicts the parent post.
With few laws that differential between marriage and people living together, marriage mostly becomes a symbolic ritual. It would be interesting to see how legal systems for alimony or custody of children effects marriage statistics.
I'd be careful of generalizing across such a diverse region. Isn't it actually a fairly small minority of countries in the Middle East that "generate [lots] of young angry jihadists"?
Most of the 18 countries considered part of the middle east have outputted their share of young men - especially if you rank the countries by population. And a significant percentage of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan were foreign fighters from middle eastern countries not central asia, particularly the leading figures. I believe most people on HN are aware extremists represent a small percentage of the total populations.
I would rank these middle eastern countries as the origin nationality of most jihadists.
High: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt (most members of the original Al-Qaeda and current leader were Egyptian, and then there are Sinai groups)
Medium (mostly just financing since they have low populations and high income): United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain.
These are obviously based on nationalities of jihadists, not based on percentages of populations whom become jihadists - which I suspect you are confusing my comment as implying.
Iran high? I wasn't aware of that. Could I ask what you are basing that on. Do you mean Iranian militias which are effectively the army and doing things which could be said to protect their country (as with US soldiers in all kinds of places they probably shouldn't be). If so I don't think that comes under the heading "angry young jihadis"
Iran has backed many jihadist groups. Two examples: Hamas, they are a group against Isreal which receives support from Iran. Iran also backed the Shiite "Mahdi army" during the Iraq war which fought a jihad against American/coalition forces, and today are still involved in a 'defensive jihad' against IS.
There are other examples. Jihad has been fought by both Sunni and Shiite groups. But more so by Sunni groups such as IS and AQ - who have tended to have more of a global objective against the west. While Iran and Shiite groups (such as in Syria/Lebanon) are mostly interested in local power grabs to keep spreading their Islamic Revolution outside of Iran.
I highly recommend this New Yorker piece on Iran and their secret proxy wars:
You're shifting the topic. We're talking about how many young Iranian men become terrorists, not the support of various groups by the Iranian state.
Most nation states, certainly including the USA, have at one time or another given material and financial support to terrorist groups. I don't condone it, but Iran is hardly exceptional in that regard.
>These are obviously based on nationalities of jihadists, not based on percentages of populations whom become jihadists - which I suspect you are confusing my comment as implying.
You asked why many Middle Eastern countries produce "so many" jihadists, implying that the majority of these countries are producing a high number. Thus, it makes no sense to respond by listing examples of terrorists or terrorist groups originating in Middle Eastern countries, since one could give similar examples for more or less any European country or for the USA. We have our homegrown terrorists too (both Islamic and otherwise).
Ok, we are getting bogged down because you're persisting in the belief that I'm misinterpreting you in a certain way. I'm not. Let me spell this out as clearly as possible:
I know that you don't care about the number of extremists as a percentage of the total population. I never thought that you did. Neither of us does. Ok?
You're still avoiding the main issue. Are most Middle Eastern countries producing an unusually high number of extremists? You can't show that they are by showing that they produce some extremists. But that's all you've done so far.
In other words, what distinguishes most Middle Eastern countries, in your mind, from e.g. Britain, France and the USA? All of these countries produce some Islamic extremists. So clearly, if you're going to say that there's something special about Middle Eastern countries in this regard, you're going to have to crunch the numbers. I don't see any numbers in any of your posts so far.
Again, none of this has anything to do with the number of extremists in comparison to the total population. The question is whether the number of extremists is significantly larger than the number produced by non-Middle-Eastern countries. In other words, when you said "so many" in your original post, were you correct to imply that the number is generally higher in the Middle East than elsewhere?
I guess you don't want it to be the case, but the answer really is "most of them". Exceptions would be Israel (if you consider Palestine separately), UAE, Kuwait.
I don't think you've looked very carefully at the graphic in the second article. You might want to compare the bar chart on the right against a list of countries in the Middle East. The Middle Eastern countries listed are:
Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen
Of those, only Jordan and Saudi Arabia are contributing large numbers of fighters. On the whole, the Middle Eastern countries on the list are contributing relatively few. The next biggest contributors are Tunisia, Bosnia and Kosovo, none of which are in the Middle East.
On top of that, note that BELGIUM is sending at least as many fighters as all of the following Middle Eastern countries (and yes, I am taking into account the different scales on each chart):
Way to put words in my mouth. "Brown people" all over the world thank you for your brave service. I know what the Middle East is, jackass. Nowhere did I say that other parts of the world were not contributing large numbers of fighters. That's irrelevant to my original point. Way to massively ignore Iraq and Syria, too. Like, did you think you would just sneak that by somehow? The truth is, most Middle Eastern countries are contributing hundreds if not thousands of fighters, and you can't ignore that, no matter how all-caps you can type Belgium. Oh and the people in Belgium, France, UK, etc.? Middle Eastern expats (or their children), many of whom hold dual citizenship.
I didn't mention them because they're not listed on the bar chart. But including them would skew the analysis for obvious reasons.
Again, your source doesn't show that the Middle East is producing more Islamic extremists on the whole than many other regions of the world. If you agree with that, then we agree. Of course, pretty much every country in the Middle East is producing a non-zero number of Islamic extremists -- as is pretty much every country in the West. If that is your only point, why draw attention to the Middle East specifically?
>Middle Eastern expats (or their children), many of whom hold dual citizenship.
You'll need another source on this. It might be true, but it's important to bear in mind that (i) many Muslims are not from the Middle East and (ii) Islamic extremism is not limited to the Middle East. So I am not sure that e.g. the majority of homegrown Islamic extremists in the UK have Middle Eastern backgrounds. It's possible, but I'd like to see some evidence.
Can't reply to juliangregorian's latest comments, so I'll reply here.
>I didn't draw attention to M.E. specifically, you did.
You’re missing the context of the thread. I was replying to someone who singled out the Middle East. From what you say, it seems that you’re not attempting to defend what the OP said, you’re just pointing out that most Middle Eastern countries are producing some number of Islamic extremists. Well, ok, no disagreement there. However, on the evidence we’ve seen so far, it seems that Middle Eastern countries don’t produce an unusually high number compared to many other regions of the world. For that reason, I object to the OP’s singling out of the Middle East as a source of Islamic extremists. It would be better to single out the countries responsible.
I’m still a little skeptical of your claim that most homegrown terrorists in Western countries have Middle Eastern backgrounds. This certainly isn’t true in many cases. For example, the 7 July bombers had Pakistani backgrounds. Do you have a source on this or is it just a hunch?
Now you're changing your argument. I realize yesterday was a long time ago, but you were the one arguing that extremism was limited to small pockets of the Middle East. I didn't draw attention to M.E. specifically, you did.
When you make an argument it's a good thing if you provide the sources you're using. That way you check your own biases; other people know if you're just cherry-picking or if you're being misled by faulty sources.
How does this belong in HN? And have you looked at what those countries been put through by us? It's easy to believe media propaganda, but are you doing yourself or the world a favor by willfully ignoring the real geo-political reasons that caused so many crises in those regions?
I'm pretty sure no geo-political reasons cause many middle eastern societies to treat woman lower than dogs and cats.
Those my friend, are religious and cultural norms put in place by their own people. No amount of external pressure has ceased the ungodly treatment of woman, homosexuals and other "miscreants" as they are deemed in much of the middle east.
> I'm pretty sure no geo-political reasons cause many middle eastern societies to treat woman lower than dogs and cats.
The U.S. and western powers keep the conservative Middle Eastern dictatorships in place, preventing any social and political reform. That is, in fact, a major cause of resentment by people of the Middle East toward the West.
In fact, Al Qaeda's goal is to overthrow the Middle Eastern dictatorships (and inflict their own oppressive dictatorship on the people there). They targeted the U.S. because they believed that American support is the reason those governments are stable, and that they first have to drive the U.S. out of the Arabian Penninsula.
The people in most Middle Eastern countries have no choice in the matter, and geopolitics is a major reason why.
It's a major cause of resentment, but that doesn't mean they've thought it out. I'd argue that the US has been a socially moderating force, not that that was intentional or a US goal.
I don't think there's any evidence Iraq, Libya, Egypt (under Morsi), Syria (under whatever remains) and eventually KSA are going to end up with better treatment for women when all their political reform is over.
Iraq under Saddam was more secular - women's rights to vote, education and political office went back to the 70's. In some areas, they may be holding on, but overall I doubt they'll end up being better off.
Egypt had a huge social/political change, and democracy meant a MB majority. Now they're back with Mubarak-lite (and they all blame the US for abandoning Egypt to the MB).
The dictatorships may be based on nominally secular values that Western countries prefer, but they also have choked out the civil society that is the foundation of liberal democracy.
Surely we're not just pointing out flaws, but drawing conclusions based on causation. To cast such a wide net and attribute their misfortune to malice when there are so many plausible arguments for why that is is willful ignorance.
First, the point could be: I'm curious if stable relationships with the gender they find attractive really do lead to less violence/crime by males?.
Second, there are significant differences in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men (one of the points made by those saying it was not a choice). These could mean that the above point only applies to heterosexual men.
I don't know if romantic relationships would prevent civilians becoming terrorists, but in at least one case, they were deliberately used to turn terrorists back into civilians:
the other aspect not to be missed as it lines up gang studies is that there is big lack father time with both sons and daughters..in ME its a culture of multiple wives..different from gangs with single moms..but same effects angry young men
Many middle eastern countries practice polygamy which deprives many lower status men of the chance of having a partner and children. The high status men also enforce heavy penalties for adultery to ensure their collection of wives is not cuckolded by other men. Coupled with the inequality where women are treated as property and this indeed does remove the tempering influence of women.
There is little doubt that the triggering of protective behaviour that comes with fatherhood is a benefit to any society.
For the Middle East it can be much simpler than that. I read something like Middle East experiences a population boom with like 50% of population being younger than 25. (exact number may differ) With so many young men there is not enough land from parents for them to inherit. With no decent education to increase productivity and a rigid political structure there is a huge pressure in the society building up.
In my experience, having a stable girlfriend for the past 3 years has been like looking in a mirror every month or so.
She calls me out on things that I do habitually or without thinking, usually because they are selfish and hurt her or our relationship in some way. These are habits or personality traits that my close friends and family wouldn't be aware of, but that my girlfriend has exclusive access to as the one with whom I share the most intimate details of my life. She forces me to reflect on why I am the way that I am; sometimes directly when we fight, but often indirectly through her questions and observations.
I'd like to think that our relationship has made us more empathetic and introspective. I don't think it has made me any less extreme in my ideals though.
My personal view is that extremism is generally bred by a low standard of living and a high degree of economic inequality that is forced onto a united group of people that feel like they deserve more than the system has given them. The uniting factor could be race, religion, age - anything, it doesn't really matter.
I've recently been struggling with the notion that, as a 22-year old who is about to graduate, I am to enter an economy and a system set up and controlled entirely by the captains of finance and government who allowed the financial crisis of 2007 to occur, and who have been unable to "fix" the economy through monetary and fiscal reform. This has pushed me towards the study of Bitcoin, a "radical" tool that traditional economists are quick to dismiss as a libertarian/anarchist fantasy. I don't subscribe to any political viewpoint - I simply see a broken system that has destroyed the lives of many of the constituents that it was created to serve through corruption and negligence. Bitcoin is just another tool, such as Quantitative Easing and Interest rate manipulation, that we could possibly implement to reduce the volatility of the financial system and remove some of its susceptibility to greed and corruption.
My interest in Bitcoin nothing compared to ISIS, the PLO, the Black Panthers, or any other minority group that was oppressed and decided to try and change a system that it found unfair and stacked against it. The difference is that these "extremist" groups use violence to fight their battles, because they see the alternative life of dying poor and oppressed as a non-option.
If we were to advance every civilization to a point where the standard of living was high enough and the measure of inequality was low enough, I think we could eradicate most forms of physically violent extremism. Mental "extremism" in the form of thought-experiments pushing the boundaries of the current system would continue, but to the benefit of society in general. Will this ever happen? Probably not.
I tried my best to address of [1] the causes of extremism and [2] the effects of male-female relationships on extremism.
I study economics and am facing unemployment upon graduation. I'm thinking of travelling, teaching, and/or working for an NGO or a non-profit.
I don't find QE evil. I find it to be an ineffective solution to a problem caused by the corruption and negligence of a select cohort of my elders who hold positions of power in this country. These individuals are not evil; we are all susceptible to greed and selfish interests. They are the product of whatever environment they were raised in.
I'm not crying and wringing my hands without offering a solution. I'm proposing that a New Deal-style investment in infrastructure, education, R&D, and the introduction of virtual currencies could help the economy in the long run.
While reading your original post and before I got to the part about bitcoin I was thinking bitcoin might be a good way to respond to the problems of greed and corruption you point out. It's early days for crypto currency so we're still in a bit of a wild west show. Just want to let you know other people are thinking along those lines too. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Thanks, I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted. Maybe it's because I'm not backing up my statements about the corruption and negligence of those in charge of the financial and economic well-being of the country.
Congress appointed an independent, 10-person panel of lawyers, economists, businessmen, financiers, and auditors (known as the FCIC) to explore the causes of the financial crisis. Here are there findings, for anyone who is interested in learning a bit more about a topic that is not very well understood for the amount that it is casually discussed.
I don't think are actually any studies that support this, unfortunately. War simply isn't a consequence of gender, it is a consequence of ideology and fear.
Well if you read anthropological literature you'll quickly find references to strong positive correlation between social status of women and peacefulness, and the inverse of course.
There's a long history of wars ostensibly being fought on behalf of women, and women pressuring men into enlisting. One example is the Order of the White Feather. During WW1 and WW2, women would shame men who weren't wearing a uniform by presenting them with a white feather, a symbol of cowardice. Propaganda frequently justifies the need for war by claiming that it is about defending women, and nations are often personified as women, e.g. Liberty, Columbia, Lady Britannia, etc.
If you are English you grew up with the stories of Boudicca who battled the Romans, the notion of the warrior woman is pretty deeply embedded in our national psyche.
It's not hard to find references to such studies. See eg
"Scholars and polling organizations have also noted a consistent gender divide in public opinion on military action, beginning with World War II through the most recent U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with men expressing higher levels of support for military action than women (Bendyna et al.,1996; Berinsky, 2009; Burris, 2008; Fite et al., 1990; Moore, 2002; Nincic and Nincic, 2002; Rohall et al., 2006; Shapiro and Mahajan, 1986; Smith, 1984; Wilcox et al., 1993)" (from https://www.academia.edu/1802567/Race_Gender_and_Attitudes_T... )
I think Osama Bin Laden had so many life-stabilizers i.e. women throughout his lifetime and yet he pursued the terrorist career with vengeance till the last breath.
> Even more interesting is your attempt to shut down the conversation because it offends you.
That brings up an interesting issue for me. It's a somewhat popular trope, that there is an equivalence between Amy offending people and Bob asking her to stop. It's really a rhetorical tactic -- an attempt to disrupt Bob by forcing him to philsophically justify what is obviously and intuitively true to everyone.
There may be a question of whether something is offensive or otherwise does harm to others, of course. But absolutely if someone finds something offensive, they should stand up and say so -- and not be shut down by the new political correctness (i.e., the frequent knee-jerk reaction to people who point out issues of race, gender, etc.).
People don't trn and shut down these conversations because they're offensive. They try and sht them down because they're toxic.
Try wandering into any programming thread and talking nonsense about eg static typing then complaining about people trying to shut down the conversation.
Interesting, I never thought about this side-effect of mass incarceration. Another aggravating factor in a repeating cycle?
I remember reading a hypothesis of why many middle eastern countries generate so many young angry jihadists is that most of the young men had never had a stable interactions with women in their youth. Most grew up in socially conservative environments and missed out on the stabilizing effect of having relationships with women, not having a sexual output, not having reasons to stay alive for a girl at home, or even missing out on having a female perspective on things (women are arguably less war-prone than men).
Middle eastern young males obviously experience a different social environment than black men do but I'm curious if stable relationships with women really do lead to less violence/crime by males? Or is that merely hopeful thinking by social conservatives?