It's interesting to see the number of folks apparently in favor of DMA and the strict regulatory environment in EU. Genuinely curious: what is the concrete benefit for users (and does it offset the negatives)? And does this foster a healthy and thriving environment for innovation?
In my liberal view it sounds awful for users and entrepreneurs alike. Wondering what are the arguments in favor (other than "apple/google = bad").
E.g.
Consider the DMA’s impact on Europe’s tourism industry. The DMA requires Google Search to stop showing useful travel results that link directly to airline and hotel sites, and instead show links to intermediary websites that charge for inclusion. This raises prices for consumers, reduces traffic to businesses, and makes it harder for people to quickly find reliable, direct booking information.
People in Europe don't have the automatic anti-regulation sentiment that US has. Regulations, at least from consumer perspective, seem to be working pretty well in the EU.
- My mobile operator wanted to charge me $6/MB for data roaming, until the anti-business EU regulation killed the golden goose. Roaming is free across EU. The mobile operator is still in business.
- USB-C not just on iPhone, but also all the crappy gadgets that used to be micro-USB. Consumer prices on electronics probably rose by $0.01 per unit.
- Chip & pin and NFC contactless payments were supported everywhere many years before ApplePay adopted them. European regulators forced banks to make fraud their problem and cooperate to fix it.
- The card payment system got upgraded despite card interchange fees being legally capped to ~0.3%. The bureaucrats killed an innovative business model of ever-increasing merchant fees given back to card owners as cashback, which made everyone else paying the same prices with cash the suckers subsidising the card businesses.
- Apple insinuates they only give 1 year of warranty, but it magically becomes 2 years if you remind them they're in the EU.
Just a day ago, we've had Google's idea of "useful results" frontpaged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366566. Between this, the malicious restrictions being added to Android, and countless other things, I'm genuinely surprised anyone still believes them to be acting in users' best interests.
I guess it won't but it shows they absolutely don't care about pertinence of search results anymore, so their argument that DMA will make for worse search results does not hold much value when they are already worsening their search results out of their own volition. (those are ads but they take the entire page and are easily confused for results, so as a standard-issue user the difference between ads and search results is vague. It would be improved by reverting to the previous UI of ads where they were shown quite differently)
> In my liberal view it sounds awful for users and entrepreneurs alike
curious to read what arguments you have against or in favor?
From what I understand, in European countries (inc EU) both public and private sector rely predominantly on US and Asian imports for Computer Hardware, Software and Digital Services.
With DMA, they're looking to level the playing fields for local entrepreneurs, and likewise for small firms from say, developing economies such as in Africa or Middle East for example (the neighborhood).
Also worth noting, that, Europe has a massive problem with brain-drain and a rapidly aging population. If local entrepreneurs can't compete with Asian or US tech giants, they have to move to Asia or the USA.
In your quote, aren’t those the same thing? Isn’t Google just playing intermediary and integrating it onto their website and claiming that’s different?
Correct, but in this case people went to Google to search for flights, so one may argue the user wants to see, well, flight information. Yet, despite Google knowing the answer, it cannot show to users, per DMA.
Instead, Google needs to send the user to a 3P website, which may or may not have the information the user is looking for. And the 3P website needs to monetize its traffic, so you should expect another wave of ads (in addition to the ones you already saw at google.com), plus cookie consent banners, affiliate links, offer for hotels, car rental, etc.
Google does not want to show them flight information, it wants to make money. They happen to be showing flight information right now. Their interests do not align with yours.
The DMA ensures a healthy competitive market which keeps enshittification at bay by keeping "using a competing service" a viable threat.
Google Flights is the best and by far the least "enshitified" flight booking app. There is already a competitive market and I use Google because it's better.
> Consider the DMA’s impact on Europe’s tourism industry. The DMA requires Google Search to stop showing useful travel results that link directly to airline and hotel sites, and instead show links to intermediary websites that charge for inclusion. This raises prices for consumers, reduces traffic to businesses, and makes it harder for people to quickly find reliable, direct booking information.
Lmao this is just such a big pile of nothing. Lets let Google and Apple run unchecked so consumers can see a link to a hotel. Yes. Good deal.
If you believe in fully remote work, and think that companies should not pay double to have employees in HCOL locations: why would you hire in a crazily expensive market like the US in the first place?
If everyone is remote, why not put your employees in Costa Rica? Or São Paulo? Colombia? Heck, even Canada is cheaper than many places in the US.
And we're only talking about timezone-aligned markets. You can also consider Poland, or India, and now you can hire a lot more resources for the same cost. Sure, it will be less efficient, collaboration tax and all, but 2.5X is quite a difference.
The one thing holding US-based companies from going all-in offshore is the belief that in-person relationships still matter. They would rather pay the extra COL mark up than save 40-70% for a remote employee.
To be clear: the jobs are going to other markets; this is not a either or situation. But at least hybrid RTO has as a dampening effect, and protects the internal job market. We should be celebrating folks like Amazon, not complaining that they don't get it.
In the past we had more demand than supply, which kept salaries stable (read: high). Now there's more supply than demand, and the main thing holding salaries stable is that employers still want warm bodies walking through their doors every day. Remove that, and you get a race to the bottom.
This argument keeps popping up as if every engineer was exactly the same, which is simply not true.
High quality talent is expensive, hard to recruit, hard to keep. High salary is one of many perks a company offers to capture high quality talent. A work visa to live in a first world country is another one.
Agree. Contrary to many comments here, I believe this was a disaster meeting for Zelenski personally, and for his political future.
This was a photo op opportunity. His job there was to make Trump look good, so he could secure additional support and funds. He was there to stroke Trump's ego for the media, likely join Trump on the lets-play-the-tough-guy pushing Europe to open the wallet, and maybe, just maybe, lightly mention that ceasefire is a good first step, but it alone is not enough.
Instead the tried to pick a fight with the bulliest of bullies, in their home turf, in front of a hundred journalists recording every second. You don't try to be a smartypants and teach history to the guy who got elected in rewriting history (see them debating the who-did-what in 2015-2016).
I think this was a colossal mistake in the 3D chess of this invasion.
Now he gave all the reasons for Trump to wash their hands of any responsibility, and let Europe fix the mess.
The only thing that may still keep Trump engaged is Trump's own ego. He was seeing this as an opportunity to go in the history books as the biggest peace dealmaker, and potentially a Nobel Peace prize winner. Now.. not so much.
It depends on what you'd consider "untrustworthy", but some (myself included) feel it's hypocritical for Apple to position itself as a privacy conscious choice, and use its marketing / PR machine to give the impression it only makes money on devices/subscriptions, when they're silently managing an ads-funded cash cow, with billions of dollars that go directly to the bottom line, as pure profit.
Here's a few pointers, to get you up to speed [1-5]. Of course there's nothing wrong with monetizing their own user base and selling ads based on their 1PD (or, in the case of Safari, monetizing the search engine placement). But I find it ironic that they make a ton of money by selling ads based on the exact same practices they demonize others for -- user behavior, contextual, location, profile.
> they're silently managing an ads-funded cash cow, with billions of dollars that go directly to the bottom line, as pure profit
Advertising isn't anti-privacy. Apple's fight was with tracking by third parties without user knowledge or consent. That is independent of, but often used for, advertising purposes.
This is different from say Google determining ads on Youtube based on what you are watching on Youtube.com, and from Amazon or Apple promoting products based on your product searches solely within their respective stores.
Tracking-based Ad targeting is blip in the history of advertising and goes against previous decades of "common sense" in advertising that the best ads cast the widest net and catch the eye of people you (and they) don't even know are potential targets.
I hope this current fad dies and people return to that older marketing "common sense". Over-targeting is bad for consumers and bad for advertisers, the only people truly benefiting seem to be Google and Meta.
Honest question: what kind of "blogs" and "social" would survive without advertising? What kind of content creator can produce quality content in the long run, for free?
The Verge? Nops. Techcrunch? Also not. AnandTech or Business Insider? No and no. Hackaday? Dead. NYT and Bloomberg? Maybe, and likely not. And what about your top 20 favorite YouTube creators? The majority would be gone.
Sure, the long tail of quirky small bloggers would be unaffected -- they don't really make any money today from advertising. But a lot of them are bottom-feeders; they consume content produced by others, and re-hash to add their own takes.
And we're not even talking about the second order effect -- all the ecommerce companies that would be wiped out without qualified leads and traffic. Go to any site - The Verge, Hackaday, Daring Fireball - and see the ads. Most of those companies would disappear.
Is this really the web you want to live in? A web with only a handful of publications with large followings who can command premium subscription (read: The Information, NYT, Stratechery, etc), and the top x% of privileged wealthy folks who can afford paying for a bunch of subscriptions?
Yes, I would call advertising a social necessity. It's like a multi-dimension version of prisoner's dilemma - it may not feel you're winning, but the alternative option is much worse.
I already don't see ads on any of the sites you mentioned and I haven't for a decade thanks to Raymond Hill. Clearly they're able to survive with a significant percentage of users saying nope.
Out of curiosity, in these flights of fantastical hypotheticals where “advertising” doesn’t exist, or at least the advertising industry, why are we assuming the other features of capitalism would remain?
If you use Chrome, YouTube Shorts Block [1] is a good extension for that, and removes (mostly) Shorts videos. Not perfect, still leaves some traces (e.g. empty spaces, channel titles in subscriptions), but it helps to declutter your user experience.
And while we're talking about extensions to customize your YT experience, here's three more that I really enjoy:
- Clickbait Remover [2], to remove the usually clickbait-ish video thumbnails
- Unhook [3], to remove the recommended videos entirely. This extension helped me reduce the time spent on YT. I now browse recommendations on my phone much more quickly, add what I want to check out to Watch Later queue, so on desktop I only search, check subscriptions, or consume my WL queue
- Video Speed Controller [4]. This one is super popular, so probably you already have it installed.
I personally do not use it though as I do not have a problem with advertising in general. As long as there is no data collection and targeted ads, I am good to sponsor with my time.
(*) "Firefox 103+ and layout.css.has-selector.enabled set to True - Experimental CSS feature not fully working on Firefox, some rendering issues may occur"
Fantastic list, thank you. I didn't know about most of these.
What's the benefit of the video speed controller over the playback speed controls provided by YouTube?
The thread model is that maintainers of popular extensions get offers of several thousand $ all the time to pass over ownership. And there have been several incidents in which the new owners added trackers to the extension itself, tracking the user across all domains.
These extensions usually have full access to the DOM, so they can do everything they want to.
So their question is very much warrented: installing as new extension should always be well considered.
I mean... I don't really have a response to this. This is security modeling 101. To different threat models, this is a varying degree of a threat - anywhere from "not a threat" to "unacceptable threat".
You cannot universally answer the question "how much of a threat are chrome extensions".
I understand that this is a pet peeve of yours. But what exactly stops you from learning what kind of data chrome extensions have access to (they can see everything on any page you visit and send it to perpetrators) and assuming the worst?
oooo..... are you talking about chrome store that has adware filled garbage duplicates of good quality extensions?
firefox addon store is very much better in that regard. Anyway, this makes me feel like you don't know about gorhill and UBO? that is actually recommended for sane internet browsing on any browsers.
As i often say, surfing the internet in a browser without UBO feels like having unprotected sex. Fun but dangerous.
Not only on desktop. I was entirely addicted to shorts and hated that and my little monkey brain would at some point just click on them despite knowing it was entirely stupid. So I did not only block shorts on chrome but also on safari and safari iOS. You can do this by installing AdGuard and setting custom blocking filters so on the youtube website the shorts navigation button disappears and for subscriptions and suggestions I just set it up so it will show a black page. I couldn't get it stop playing audio but at least I am not seeing anything so I became unhooked. This only works in the browser of course so I uninstalled the YouTube app and I can only open YouTube in safari. I _really_ wish YouTube would just natively allow disabling shorts alltogether in their app and on their website.
> Please encouragement only, no discouragement. I’m discouraged enough already.
IMHO, that's exactly the problem. Bear with me for a sec.
Unless you find someone who has the exact same objective and wants to have kids asap (i.e., a more transactional relationship), this will always be a major turn off. Your partner will feel pressured to make a decision quickly, and sooner or later will think the main thing you want is their sperm to have a baby. That's a recipe for folks to back off. Even if you believe you're not putting pressure, I bet they can smell it a mile away. It has a direct impact on your mindset, your behavior, and self-confidence, even if you believe you're effective in masking it.
It may sound counter intuitive, but once you stop trying "to find someone to marry and have kids", you may actually find someone.
The first step is to start accepting yourself and your life as it is -- and being proud of being single and having no kids. It is what it is. Cut the bullshit of dating coaches, hundred dates, dozen of books, and all the mental energy you're wasting obsessing about it. Give up the serial dating, and immerse yourself in work, or a cause you care about, sports, gym, hobbies, church, or whatever suits your fancy. Sure, make new friends and go on dates, but not because you want to "find love and build a family", but because you want to have fun and enjoy having sex every now and then.
Once you do it - truly do it - you'll be seen as more attractive, more powerful, successful, confident, remarkable, independent. You won't need anyone on your side to be the best version of yourself. And there's nothing more f*ing attractive than that.
Pragmatically speaking, you've already frozen your eggs, so you have a plan B for later. For now, internalize that you are enough. Once you accept it, everything else will follow.
I used to believe this kind of advice. However, I’ve actually spent quite a bit of time working on myself and coming to peace with my life as it is.
I think the everything will follow piece is a spiritual bypass that isn’t reflected in reality.
There are so many confident, beautiful , career-driven women who are in the same predicament as me.
I think that women are learning to take charge in every aspect of their lives. Why not relationships.
When I’m building my startup, no one says, sit back, be confident and the startup will grow itself.
Why shouldn’t it be that I can have a strategic goal in my life to have kids and a family and work towards achieving that in an active, not passive way ?
I'm not sure if I'm reading the previous comment and this one correctly, but it sounds like you're up front with your dates about what you want -- the monogamy, kids, etc. And that could work well, but... it also might not. It creates a feeling of pressure, which I'll try to explain:
Some time back, I was set up for a date with an absolutely amazing woman. She was attractive, fit, wealthy, worked as a CTO in a very successful and growing startup. I think she was on one of those Forbes lists. Also, out of my league, but she didn't seem to think so.
Anyway, we had a date, it went fine, and then she told me about her bucket list, all the cool ideas she'd had. Well, she'd already crossed off everything except "find a guy to have kids with". It was kind of a clever little way to drop what she wanted into conversation, and I thought she carried everything off with confidence and aplomb. She also let me know that she'd go out with me again.
I didn't ask for a second date. I still think about why from time to time. Nothing about her was wrong for my tastes -- all the success, intelligence, confidence, etc is attractive to me -- so why not carry on a bit further? The conclusion I came to was: I just felt like I'd be wasting her time. She told me exactly what she wanted, but I didn't have the same certainty. I didn't feel like I was a good inclusion to the plans of someone so focused and certain of her goals. She was also short on time to go ahead and get a family set up; what if I dated her for two, or four, or six months then decided that we weren't a perfect match? I'd feel guilty as hell, because I burned some extremely valuable time. So: better to bow out.
Anyway, that's all a long anecdote with no specific point or lesson, and unfortunately I don't know how it could have gone better for her. Your description of yourself just reminded me of that story, so I thought it might be of interest to hear a retrospective from "one of those guys".
100x this. Unless the OP finds someone with an equal drive to build a family and have kids now, 9 out of 10 guys will simply bail out before even trying. No one wants the risk of realizing later that you wasted OP's precious time, so better to not even try.
I have to confess that when I don't think a guy is a good fit for me, I really go heavy into my desire to get married and have kids soon. It's a really good way to avoid being asked on a second date and having to hurt someone's feelings.
Anyway, I think this woman missed out, because you are a great writer and seem to have a high opinion of women and really respect them.
That's a pretty funny strategy. Considering how smart my date was, I'm sure she was also aware enough to know the whole "kids now" thing might scare me off and said it anyway, in line with whatever her dating game theory was.
I have no idea if the following applies to you, so I won't even suggest it might. I'll just share some anecdata.
I'm male, married, with two beautiful, clever children and a beautiful, clever wife. The wife has a rich list of ambitions and expectations from life, more and more as time goes on. Model 21st century woman really. She's killing it at work, learning new sports, lifting weights, networking, recently joined a government expert panel, really nailing it.
The one thing she doesn't have time for is me. I'm just there, right? But between work, always keeping an eye for new, better jobs, taking the kids to ever more elaborate activities, I'm the washing machine of the relationship: it's essential that it's there, if it makes a funny noise you better fix it, but when it's just fine you don't think about it for 2 mins. She also doesn't seem to even acknowledge that there is a tradeoff made.
Tbh, and my wife isn't on HN, if not for the kids, I'd be well gone by now. For the kids, and the kids alone, I feel at least for now it's worth sticking to it.
So, long intro done, I'd now be very, very wary of people who have long and detailed expectations of life. It's not like I'm unambitious, underachieving or slouching on the sofa. But my expectations of life is more like, strive to be happy and do interesting, meaningful things. A career for the sake of career, for example, isn't on it.
The thing is, we are bombarded left right and centre (and women perhaps more so) with propaganda that this is the only way. If you're not aiming for a top career, doing 2 sports, yoga, learning Mandarin, focusing on yourself, oh and don't forget mindfulness, then you're cave-dwelling troglodyte. Thing is, that might just not leave space for an actual relationship, or at least sound that way.
I've heard this attitude labelled in certain circles as "men being afraid/threatened by modern women", but it's not that. It's about finding someone who want to genuinely make space for another person in their life, give something and get something. That is at odds with the widely acclaimed approach that life is there to take take take from.
I think it's noble to stay in for the sake of your children.
One thought: perhaps it's obvious to you that your wife is ignoring you, but not obvious to her? Maybe she takes your calm, grounded presence in her life for granted and loves you deeply, not seeing how much you are suffering.
I'm curious to know the efforts you've made to communicate your concerns to her? Taking her out for a nice date night, couples therapy?
Perhaps your wife values you and your marriage much more than you realize and change is indeed possible.
Your kids will be fine, get out and live your life and be a positive strong influence on them. Think about what your kids see every day, the same things you described here. This becomes their model of a father, a family. Do you want that?
I am divorced with two beautiful teenage daughters from my current -happy- marriage and a 20 year old son from my first. My son not only understands why the divorce happened (dysfunctional relationship that made me feel miserable), but has admitted that seeing me happy and fulfilled has done wonders for his psychological development. He was 6 years old when I divorced my first wife.
I recommend you go to personal counseling. Not group, or family. I think you really need someone to confide in to discuss your situation. At least try it once.
Woah thanks for sharing your situation. Talking about it to others sounds like a step in the right direction.
One thing to consider is what you are teaching your kids by staying. Kids have a habit of picking up on these things at an early age and can internalize the unhealthy relationship you have as ‘normal’.
Have you spoken to your wife about this or gone to therapy together? Is she aware that she is neglecting you?
You’re correct though, it’s about priorities. I’m a corporate lawyer but I always put my husband first because at the end of the line I surely won’t be thinking, “I wish I worked more.” What’s it all for if you don’t have someone to share with.
I love my kids without bounds, they are best served by two parents right now. The logistics of separated parent childcare, for now, outweigh the daily dredge of being a washing machine.
As for later, who knows. Somewhere between the age of 0 and 30, you don't need your parents to hold your hand when you have a nightmare, when that time comes I'll think again.
At what cost? At least if you ring the alarm bell early you could improve your situation if you attempt to stick it out (couples therapy etc), but resigning to being “a washing machine” sounds like a terrible plan for your life.
The mind finds excuses to propagate your situation because it is afraid of change, and I can see that very clear in your words about “logistics”. Logistics is not a good reason at all to live your life as a washing machine.
I get what you're saying. Lots of people here suppose you're unhappy and need to get out now. I don't think they have grounds to suppose that. You do you!
Yea you are going to be need to be very strategic since the dating pool is so tiny for your age and family desires.
Alot of men who wanted families don't want career women, or already have their own family.My brother is 35 with three kids oldest is 10. My other brother is 52 year old banker who married a 34 year old woman, and they have several kids now.
I think your desire for someone of equal education or financial background will make it nearly impossible.
All this talk about men being threatened by your career - eh, I really can't relate. I wouldn't focus or worry about that. I'd just recommend working to accept older male features: balding, dad bod, maybe not too tall, etc.
Lol relationships shouldn't be looked at as "achievements" or something to put on a resume or require "work"/labor, at least good relationships. Going that route is gonna lead to many things lacking.
I mean go ahead with your plan, but if that's been your "strategy" for however long and you're still single and without the trophy kids, you're "strategy" is severely flawed and obviously not working.
I certainly don't see a relationship or kids as an achievement or something to put on my resumé. Anyone who knows me knows how deeply I love my friends and want to share that love with an intimate partner. Anyone who knows me knows how much I care for children and would love to have my own to love.
Why does this translate as an achievement for a resumé rather than a heart longing?
Because it totally does sound like that. I mean your choice of words like "taking charge", being "strategic" about it, and then comparing it to building a startup. It sounds like you're treating it as something to calculate, work for, and acquire. Like do you want a cyborg, a prop, or a human being?
Just imagine that wording being on a dating profile. Yeah, you'd get some responses and sure, maybe it works out, but upon reading that I'd put money down and bet that it'd scare away a huge number of potential winners (min 30% compared to better wording). It's because it sounds too robotic, calculated, blueprint-like, and signals up-tight, controlling, another job to work at after coming home from their day job. The opposite is needed.
Guys get scared off when they hear things like that. It has nothing to do with a strong and empowered woman. It's got everything to do with affecting their freedom to be themselves, hang with their boys, and just not feel like they'd be put on a leash and treated like a prop. Guys, typically speaking, just want to be bros with whoever, regardless of gender, and just chill and not worry about being constrained.
Do what you want, but at least don't go by the advice you want to hear here. Go by what you need to hear here.
You can be strategic about it. But the outcome of 'getting a partner' is not within anyone's control. You can only present the best version of yourself, but you can't control who will and won't like you.
Thanks for sharing this video with Bryan Cranston.
Funnily enough, I started my career as an actor before moving into entrepreneurship and eventually tech.
What rings true for me in this, is keeping your eye on what's most important to you, in my case, giving and receiving love, giving and receiving support and letting go of the outcome.
One of the benefits of dating a lot of people is you really do stop caring if the people like you or not, and let go of the outcome.
I've found that since I've adopted that approach, 90-95% of men asking me on a second date.
I'm not looking to them to validate me or fill a whole on my heart.
But dating a lot of people really helps with this.
You learn some people like you and you don't feel it's a fit.
You like some people and they don't feel it's a fit.
Every now and then you get the magic combination.
It's rare, but it can happen.
Throwaway, because I'm going to say things that may not be all that kosher, but you asked for honest feedback, so here.
Additionally, you're asking some very nerdy nerds this advice on a Saturday of a long weekend. The population sample here is biased as hell.
Also, lets face it, men are pigs. And without a picture of you, we're all just guessing as to real reasons why. And, no, that doesn't mean I want a pic of you, please don't do that, please keep your privacy on HN. No pics.
Ok, that all said:
> I think that women are learning to take charge in every aspect of their lives. Why not relationships?
Men, bad as it is, don't want superwoman. Especially the men you're looking for in Austin. They want to take care of their woman and their families. I've read a few of your comments on here, but not all. And you come off as driven and very very smart. It's awesome.
That's generally a good thing, but likely not here based on your self reported failure.
Partnerships, sure. That's great. But men want to be men. And that mean the 3 P's: Provider, Protector, Procreator. If you have all three, you can be a 'real man' and participate in the great game of male honor. If you have only two Ps, you better be really good at them. If you only have one, you're not a real man and can't participate in male honor groups. Yeah, yeah, caveats all over the place. But, generally, you gotta have the three P's to be a 'real man'.
That you are a founder and a kick-ass, take-names, kinda gal is great. But it takes away the P of Provider part of being a man. Doing some real bad projection here, you likely make more than him, or will soon if all goes to plan. That means, to him, you're prospectively taking away some part of his manhood and honor. Also, he's likely reading into the reality that there just isn't a lot of time for another person in your life outside of your business. We all read here on HN how hard founder life is and how much of a time suck it is.
This one is less of an issue, maybe, I dunno. You mention crossfit and the like. That's awesome, you're doing a great job of working on your health and fitness. Keep doing that. But, depending on how big and fit you are, that takes away the P of Protector. He's not the person that can protect his family from the wolves at the cabin door. You both may be. That's awesome when wolves actually are at the cabin door. But he's trying to imagine his future with you, fantasize about what may be. Sharing that role of Protector may not be what he wants to fantasize about.
The last one is maybe the biggest issue and unfortunately the least changeable. The role of Procreator. You're 41. I'm not going to lie to you, the stats on procreation at as advanced maternal age as yourself are not the worst, but they are not the best either. Geriatric pregnancies like the one you are aiming to have come with a lot of risks and side effects on the child. That's pretty common knowledge. Men that you are looking for are aware that having children with you is a more risky proposition than with the, to borrow a baseball term, average replacement. Meaning that, clone you exactly but 10 years younger, it's less risk to go with the younger clone in terms of child health. I know, that's really pretty brutal. I'm sorry, it's fucking bullshit. But by being older than younger-clone-you, you essentially lessen the third P of Procreator.
So, what to do then?
Like I said, you have to have all three to be a real man, or be really good at at least two. I feel that you're pretty dead set on the Procreator role for your man. That's totally cool. I have kids too. They are awesome, more people should have them. They filled a hole in me that I wasn't aware that I had. But with your age, understand that means he's going to count that one as a 'less' role for himself. You need to build him up on the other two.
So for the Provider one, you kinda gotta aim for men that make more than you, are otherwise really good at hunting/fishing/outdoors stuff and take that really seriously, or are really good at scrapping, knowing the right people, grifting, etc. He's gotta feel like he's able to Provide for you, that you depend only on him for your future and your financial security. Because the P of Procreator is lessened, you have to heighten this one. Being a kick-ass start-up founder, yeah, this is going to be a tough one for you to navigate. Honestly, I'd go for the outdoorsy types as the financial stuff is going to be messy. You can kinda let this P be a 'less' overall, but not as much as the Procreator one.
So, for the Protector one, as I said at the start, you gotta drop the handkerchief. I think this is the one you can have the most success with. Be more of a damsel in distress for him. Yeah, I know, it's not the most modern-orthodox idea. But you need to build these men up as being able to take the role of Protector as the main role for them in the realtionship. You have to make him feel really truly huge as a Protector for you. Aim for the bulkier gym rat guys, maybe veterans or active duty men that can 'Provide/r' a really good healthcare and retirement plan, and again the outdoorsy hunters with lot of guns. You're in Austin, there are a lot of gun start-ups there, take advantage of that. Talk up how unsafe you feel about town, how your ex was abusive or something, how you really like a guy that can take care of you in a fight. Strange as it sounds, be easily startled.
In short, drop the handkerchief. I think it's your best bet.
Best of luck! I hope all goes well and I look forward to seeing a post on here from you about how it all turned out great! You got this girl!
I’m sorry but I find this overly simplified psychological model of men quite demeaning. Sure you will find men who do fit this model, but why the hell would you want to?
You are essentially asking op to change who she is to fit into an outdated model of the world.
Moreover the person she finds will likely be completely incompatible for her and even abusive toward her.
The 3Ps model comes from Gilmore's 1991 book Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. It's a dense read and very well researched. The 3Ps comes out of the studies on male honor and that culture and how they are all linked together. Very few societies do not have male honor cultures. And yes, not all males participate in their honor culture, but as a consequence they are not considered 'real men' in their culture. The culture of men in Texas very much has the 3Ps defining a 'real man'.
As for asking OP to change, welp, yeah. I mean, she's literally asking HN what she needs to change to get a man to settle with her.
I don't see why they would be abusive at all. The Protector role is the literal opposite of that. A 'real man' protects his family and loved ones, he does not harm them. This is in part why wife-beaters and child abusers are so reviled in the culture and courts of Texas.
Hopefully the book will be a good summer read for you. Thanks again!
A man can have honor and represent amicable qualities: wanting to provide and protect - nothing wrong with that, but if a man has a problem with a woman being a provider or protector then thats a recipe for disaster. You shouldn’t have to make yourself appear weak so that a man is attracted to you.
Its better to filter out people who don’t accept you for who you are rather than bend over backwards to try to appease someone. If you are a kickass woman entrepreneur then lean into that and find someone who admires that quality in you.
In regards to the potentially abusive situation, let me elaborate:
If a man needs a woman to be weaker than him, in my mind that is toxic and potentially abusive. Best filter these people out from the beginning by being honest with yourself and them
I can’t relate to this “three Ps” thing at all. I just want a partner who is deep thinking (most important), reasonably kind, and reasonably good looking.
I couldn’t give two shits about some weird notion of being a provider or a protector. Income, strength? It doesn’t come into the equation for me. But then, I also don’t have a strong need to be a procreator.
I have no success dating due to my own seemingly excessive standards (almost impossible to find deep thinkers) so I can’t give any advice on that front.
But you shouldn’t rule out being a single mother, because I suspect you’d regret that once it’s no longer possible.
I find women who cannot provide for themselves unattractive.
I was brought up by 2 working parents and all my siblings are working professionals; I expect my partner to "pull her weight". Damsel's in distress are a huge turn-off for me,and having that imbalance feels icky and transactional on some level - to me.
But I know men who exclusively date women with lower academic qualifications than them, because they want that income gradient/clear pecking-order.
It's utter nonsense. It's typical HN, a long winded extremely confident post about something that the commenter clearly doesn't understand half as well as they think they do.
> I’d be curious to hear from men here if they identify with this and feel un attracted to a woman providing for herself.
No, I don’t identify in the slightest. The opposite is true. I find interest in someone who can be a partner in the true sense of the word. We should strive to improve each other and remain together by choice, because we’re happy, not because one of us has a small ego and the other is incapable of being independent. What a boring scenario.
That said, I don’t doubt it does happen. A friend has told me of a man she dated who couldn’t get over the fact she earned more than him. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t last. She’s much happier now, in a healthy relationship.
Is finding someone so important that you’d consider presenting as someone you are not? Sounds like a recipe to attract a partner you’d regret choosing.
Dated women who were way more successful than me. Wasn't a problem at all. It'd only be a problem if a guy has no confidence.
Personally, I think you just need to give up (that's what I did) and just learn to be okay with the things the way they are now. It either will happen or not. You just cannot force these things.
Also (probably not such a great advice) but maybe you just need to go to a bar and meet a guy who is a little bit of an asshole..?
I'm very into women who can provide for themselves, and potentially me (and I them) in case we need to lean on each other.
But I also 100% don't want to make kids, so probably not your target audience.
I'd actually be open to the idea of raising kids, parenting, adopting, etc., I just don't want to make them.
Not offering myself, but it's entirely possible there are men with similar preferences (or who had a vasectomy, etc.).. are you overlooking them as possible matches? Because you could have your relationship and your kids, and if there's no pressure on being the bio-dad within any time-frame, maybe that takes pressure off relationship candidates also
Based on my own - very Eurocentric - experience, and my circle of friends, relationships where only one part is the provider all failed (to reiterate: not all of them fail, just the relationship of people I personally know/friends of friends). It was about the money. Once one party starts to feel that the other is spending “their” money, the wheels come off. Maybe it worked better when divorce was frowned upon.
As for the protector… it does not matter how buff you are, in 99% of the time your average male will still be more able to fight off a physical threat. But yes, there are men who feel inferior because of being less fit. And there are men, who will applaud it and have no trouble lifting less weight than you. Guess who is more self confident…
About the procreation: that one I could imagine. If you want to badly have kids as a man, or want to badly leave that option for the future, you’d probably pick a spouse with enough “runway”. But there are also many guys who rather enjoy the money and don’t want kids.
It’s bad advice and maybe the rantings of a lunatic. Act like a damsel in distress? I don’t think I can read that twice without losing my vision. And the 3 P’s? C’mon. I have army special forces friends that make less than their wives and are childless, I don’t get the impression that they don’t feel like ‘real men’.
I would not mind my wife earning more than I do… she doesn’t but I wish she would (I was simply lucky enough to be passionate about something that pay well)! To be honest I think she put way more effort in her job than I do in mine! On the other hand my mother is richer than my father (they both are very wealthy but she is the wealthier) and was never an issue for them (still happily married at 72yo)
Maybe as a gay man my advice doesn't fit here, but that is not my experience at all. Gay couples work nicely even if they both earn similar income and there is no "provider".
i don't identify with this at all, but keep in mind, HN is not your average demographic. a lot of people here earn a lot themselves, so of course a partner with a good income is not going to make them uncomfortable.
I would never marry a woman that can’t provide for herself, and I think it would be amazing if she earns more than me.
However, I don’t think it’s completely wrong, men do want to feel needed somehow.
You seems so perfect and the only thing missing in your life it’s a child. That’s not a good advertisement.
Let men feel needed and tell them that, ask for their help and their opinion. If a guy is real computer nerd, let him help with your IT related issues, and sure, you could probably pay someone to do it better, but the point is to let people/men feel as part of your life.
What is missing in your life beside a child?
Are you too serious? Look for a funny guy that can make you laugh.
Are you too healthy maniac? Look for a guy that can sometimes push you to really tasty food, but not healthy.
Are you too impulsive? Look for a guy that keep you grounded.
- your 3 Ps sounds like a lot like I imaging older generations (older than me, mid20). Do you think this is changing with newer generations? As you said, this all is pretty much bullshit...
- From what OP said, she's more on the intellectual side. Men (or human in general) on this side might be more open and doesn't follow the cave man 'uga-uga' mentality
- Short answer: Probably never. The 3Ps theory is well established in academic masculinist studies. A good overview of the 3Ps comes from Gilmore's 1991 book Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity if you want to learn more. Very briefly, all males conform to these Ps to participate in male honor. Yes, many males do not, but they are then without honor, and therefore considered not 'real' men in their culture. Honor is redefined here to encompass more than just the classical concept and is more a pan-male term, it gets a bit wonky. Man is also generally defined as 'not a boy', not 'not a woman'(sorry for all the nots here). The book does a much better job at introducing the ideas than a little HN comment could. In the end, I fail to see how any generation is going to escape ~200,000 years of human history. I could be very very wrong though!
- It's not caveman, it's a theory of how men work in their culture and in almost all cultures we know of (the book goes into the exceptions and how they 'prove the rule' essentially). In the culture of Texas, 'real men' possess these three Ps, or at least have 2 Ps in above average amounts. HN isn't the best place to really dive into it, as most of the men here have above average Provider traits due to the income from tech jobs. It kinda blinds them to men that have to rely on the Protector and Procreator roles for their honor. I want to stress, Provider is not just income.
OP being a selector, and not a selectee, changes the equation a lot, of course. However, understanding the psychology of the men she is dating and their need of the 3Ps may help her address why her strategy is failing. Fluffing up the Protector role, or choosing men that have a lot of strengths in that role, may lead to more success.
If both you and your wife have good jobs I doubt you would be considered a less honorable man then if you had the same good job and your wife had a shitty one.
marrgTA says >...make him feel really truly huge as a Protector ... Aim for the bulkier gym rat guys, maybe veterans or active duty men that can 'Provide/r' a really good healthcare and retirement plan, and again the outdoorsy hunters .... You're in Austin, ... lot of gun start-ups there... Talk up how unsafe you feel ... how your ex was abusive ... you really like a guy that can take care of you in a fight. ... be easily startled.<
Bad advice, badly misinformed, all around. And lying to your intended is not a good recommendation:
- Crime in Austin is down and the town is incredibly left-leaning despite being in Texas. Your real problem is finding a single heterosexual male willing to procreate who has matching political views (unless you don't mind the difference),
- "Lot of gun start-ups there (Austin)" - incredible!
- The likelihood of getting in a fight in Austin, indeed, most anywhere, is slim: talking about such marks you as paranoid. [Chicago, maybe less paranoid!]. And, as everyone knows, in Texas we don't fight - we shoot each other [just joking!]. But again, pretending to fear a fight is lying.
That aside, my one question to you is why aren't you married yet - why have you rejected those men you've met who are willing to marry?
And finally, consider:
- moving to Utah (where everyone will make it their task to find you a suitable partner - they're very good at this and the Mormons are wonderful people). And Utah is a fantastic place to raise children. Hard to get good coffee there sometimes though.
- dating foreign nationals who need citizenship. Many would be surprised and pleased that you want to have children. [OTOH they might worry about your age (or their mother would!8-)).]
> Why shouldn’t it be that I can have a strategic goal in my life to have kids and a family and work towards achieving that in an active, not passive way ?
As desperate and defeated as my post does sound, actually rather well.
When I stopped sitting in my room complaining about friends about how I was single, I started getting on dating apps.
I enjoyed some lovely kisses, a few intimate moments and eventually met my first boyfriend.
I haven't met my husband yet, but I've definitely experienced that I'm living IN the world and moving closer to what I want instead of staying frozen and feeling a victim of circumstance.
If I didn't have hope, I would never have posted something so personal in such a public format.
And I've actually gotten a lot of great advice!
That is being strategic. Part of being strategic is seeking feedback.
Furthermore, I've learned from dating what I'm seeking is rare.
And I've gotten greater clarity on what I want.
That was a huge learning, and it came from seeking feedback.
I've learned I'm desirable and that's improved my self-confidence.
That came from finding an accountability partner and actually going on dates.
I've learned that a happy marriage is hard to find and it might take a lot of work. And that's given me inspiration.
That's come from being strategic.
I've learned that to get better matches on dating apps, you need great photos.
That's strategy.
I believe that knowledge is power. Women can have power over their lives and don't need to sit in their rooms and wait for prince charming to ride up on his horse.
Men are extremely strategic in how they date.
Many treat it like a sales funnel.
I don't agree about thinking about love like sales.
But I do think it's good to reflect and improve your strategy to find what you want.
And I think in this case, what I want is a good thing.
And something it's OK to long for. Not something, as some in this channel would suggest, is an "ulterior motive" or "makes me appear needy" or in some way suggests that I view men as a commodity to bear my "trophy kids."
If men are strategic about dating, why shouldn't women do the same?
You seem very smart and thoughtful. As you’ve asked for opinions, I’ll give you mine… the thing I’ve noticed missing in your posts in this thread (and if I missed it, forgive me) is mention of love.
Instead, you seem quite and transactional and check-list oriented.
Has there not been a man you’ve met for whom you’ve simply fallen head over heels in love? A man that suddenly makes all your strategic-thinking utterly irrelevant? I have no tips for how to find such a guy. But, I would bet that IF you find your soulmate, it will come out of the blue and, perhaps, he’ll meet very very few of your criteria. And, you won’t care in the slightest as you will have found in him a host of qualities that you suddenly realize you can’t live without.
Good luck.
Practical advice? Stay off the apps… I’ll risk the downvotes by saying the obvious: you don’t want the kind of guy who uses dating apps. You want the kind of guy you bump into in person, walking the dog.
In short, find a guy your attracted to, and flirt. It’s your superpower as a woman: regrettably, most women seem to have no idea how much control they have in finding a mate. Your last line about men being strategic in dating is wrong. We are not. Instead, most men are just waiting and hoping and praying that a woman will smile at them and start a flirtatious conversation.
*edit*I don’t think I was clear. Your problem isn’t getting dates… I get that. You probably know how to flirt quite well. I guess what I’m saying is that once you have the guy, make it romantic. Your superpower (more downvotes incoming) is your ability (and most women’s ability) to make a guy do whatever you want. Hell, many guys are dead-set against getting married… until I woman gets them to completely change their mind. It’s cliche in fact. You don’t need to find a guy who wants kids, in other words; you need only find a guy who wants to make you happy. Once you find that guy, you’re set— his pre-you opinions, goals, dreams, and sometimes even religion, is irrelevant at that point… we’re quite malleable, you know, and not nearly as set in our ways or strategic as you might think.
Because building a startup is unfortunately an entirely different endeavor from finding a mate. Otherwise successful entrepreneurs would always have happy home lives, and we all know that’s not the case.
In my liberal view it sounds awful for users and entrepreneurs alike. Wondering what are the arguments in favor (other than "apple/google = bad").
E.g.
Consider the DMA’s impact on Europe’s tourism industry. The DMA requires Google Search to stop showing useful travel results that link directly to airline and hotel sites, and instead show links to intermediary websites that charge for inclusion. This raises prices for consumers, reduces traffic to businesses, and makes it harder for people to quickly find reliable, direct booking information.