Maybe. Most of the people interviewed on the streets these days can't even name their state capitol. I get it and I don't think the ladies are clueless but the fact is they've all met plenty of men and not one bear.
@@MikeGastin are you not hearing what you are being told or are you being knowingly obtuse? people know that wild animals are dangerous, that's why they say that they would rather be chased by a bear than a man!
I said "I get it". I'm just positing that most people probably have no idea what a bear encounter is like. AND, I also understand that the meme works because it's not really abut the bear. The women are stating that regardless of how dangerous a bear is, they'd rather face one than a man. I get it. What's the problem?
@@MikeGastin thanks for the reply, I was unclear from the video how seriously you took the idea: a lot of people have misinterpreted it. I appreciate the verification.
Fair enough. It was an unplanned comment and I can see how people would take it as a slam on women. I do think there's something deeper going on with that meme and it is troubling. Thanks for giving me a chance to explain/respond. :)
Right outside my window there's a bird pulling out all the stops trying to get someone to check out his nest, and a rabbit doing his best Pepe Le Pew impression. Nature's got it covered.
This video came up in my autoplay and I figured I'd share my thoughts: I get the impression that you have a lot of resistance towards listening to what women actually have to say on this matter and the larger conversation of them withdrawing romantic/sexual interest from men. Immediately, I get the impression that you conflate women who have withdrawn from these things as "feminists," and that's not true unless you're defining feminism as withdrawing affection from men. A lot of these women do not consider themselves feminists in the slightest, but they have become exhausted by what seems like a system that really does not work in their favor. What's actually happening is women are in cross-conversation in ways they've never been. We are seeing in real time what happens to women who marry men young, become mothers, and give their entire lives over to the idea of raising a family. So many of these women reached a certain point where their husbands left them, and they are now left with decades of gaps in their work history, and they're finding themselves struggling in ways they never thought they would. So, more and more women are recognizing that very little is in it for them. Roe V. Wade being overturned actually just made that all much, much worse. We are increasingly hearing people argue that women should return home to a more "traditional" structure that never really existed. It's easy to say that all of these women are just out there being loose, and suddenly, they're changing their minds because that maps very well with misogyny. What's happening is that women are noticing that fewer people see their humanity. We normalize misogyny like it's absolutely nothing. And people refuse to listen to women even when they're clear about how they feel. It's not that a wild animal is necessarily safer than a human man, it's that when a wild animal attacks a woman, people are pretty quick to put that animal down. When their attackers are human men, we debate about it. His future is considered. His family is considered. Maybe she deserved it, perhaps she shouldn't have put herself in that position. And men greatly underestimate the commonality of abuse. And when we try to talk about it, people continue to argue that it could not possibly be as bad as we're saying it is. Not understanding that even if a woman was only victimized by 2 or three men, it's the thousands of other men who provided cover for them that make them distrustful of all men. So for many women, the idea of being in the woods with a man is immediately scary. You know that your survival may or may not depend on being sexually available to said man, and that's if he's willing to be on your side. I know I've very rarely been helped by men who didn't feel owed access to my body in some way. And I think most women intimately know this but won't express it because, again, other men will defend it. That's what happened in this entire discourse. It didn't matter what women were saying; women are just expected to accept that most men aren't dangerous despite the reality of those who've harmed them often being defended. So many women are discouraged from reporting violent men. And I'm sure this was intentional, but in case you really don't get it: the problem with the Bumble Ads is the same reason a lot of women are withdrawing from relationships with men. There is an increased effort to pressure women into being sexually available to men. So when women stop using Bumble, and people in our government argue that every woman should have a child, Roe V Wade is overturned, and your dating apps are telling you to no longer be celibate, it's not hard to figure out how people get the impression that they're being pushed into relationships with men. It feels forceful, especially when, simultaneously, absolutely nothing is done to make having children easier in this country. A lot of people avoid having children because it's not feasible for them to. Financially or otherwise. So, increasingly, women are being pressured to sacrifice their entire identities for reasons other than wanting to have children for themselves. There are far too many people who refuse to hear what women are saying, and many women get the impression that eventually, things will become much more forceful. So, Bumble shouldn't be adding to that. One major thing I'll agree with you about is that Bumble's feminism has always been about corporate greed. It's always been degenerate. Women aren't on dating apps en masse for a reason. It was never going to be a solution to anything.
I'm not affiliated to Mike, but I do like the few videos I've seen of his views. I don't agree (or even understand) some of what you're trying to point out. I have to assume that you have had physical violence from men against you? I don't condone or support these men. If that's not your past, then you're "speaking" for a broad group of women? Granted I think a lot of people do this with their topics of passion/concern/interest, so no problem. That said, the *majority* of men are not violent towards women. Are women more vulnerable to violence from men, yes. Are there stats on men being violent (and not being reported or convicted) against women, yes. Is this wrong, yes. You need to find different men, not give up on the rest of them. NOTE: Those other men may come along with preconceived and biased ideas about having children though. Don't have sex if you're concerned with having a baby or the future issues, with a partner after having a baby? You can try a long-term relationship (marriage) with limited or no sexual intimacy? Keep working your career and you may find a fullfilling path through life - to afford whatever you think you might be missing out on (with kids). Perhaps you will also find a man that's okay with this and you won't have to worry so much? If you don't think a "no sex" relationship is possible (or wanted) then go with protection. If it fails, then you're unlucky in your desire to not have a baby - see start of paragraph... [Thinking about the violence perpertrated in killing an unprotected baby is good homework towards thinking of a future family. I'm not saying whether women should have access to abortions or not... I'm saying if you ever have a child, there may be a moment as you watch them grow, that you can suddenly realise the chances in this life - and it can bring thoughts to the literal millions of humans that have been murdered before us]. In terms of women being pressured into having kids... well duh! that's the only options as humans that we have. You hopefully understand it's "normal". In that the majority of creatures on this planet do some form of reproduction to survive - with the majority being the female of the species. Men didn't invent the system, but we are the other half of the equation and at times it seems with a higher desire to proliferate the species (possibly with less thinking involved than the female humans). So, of course society and Governments want new babies to propel their country/society forwards (ie. production and taxes). How else do humans continue on this planet? "You're getting older and you and you partner with no kids, are ready to retire... and then the Government says - Sorry, we've got no more money handouts for the elderly folks now that there are no more kids, no one is working or paying taxes. I'm reading "handmaids tale" vibes from your last bit about the men who will force babies onto women into the future? Don't know if that's where it's headed. I won't be lining up or supporting it, just saying. Anyone who has left their relationship chances to a digital connection App, surely understands it's just that - a chance (bad or good). They might just as randomly chance meet someone at the shops, bump into someone in the street, or have a common interest in some topic. How people meet and whether they stay together is complex and not always determined from the initial moment. Of course, these old methods of physically meeting people, taking time, energy, situations, communicating, investment in your physical persona to other's judgements or similar alignments can end up to costing in time and money for getting to know someone. It takes less effort to swipe a screen showing a book-cover version of others (and themselves). So, you have to way-up that both situations need "spidey-senses" to detect the wrong match and even then someone could fool you. Sorry. The world can be very unfair.
“The idea that parenthood and raising children should be the central focus of every person's adult life. It is a strong social force and includes a collection of beliefs so embedded that they have come to be seen as true.” Laura Carroll, The Baby Matrix
Not sure your point since all you've done is drop a quote without comment. Carroll's logic is flawed. The idea in question is not just "a strong social force". It is completely embedded in our very bodies, our emotions, and our desires. We are not highly driven, highly fertile reproductive organisms by social pressure and a simple acknowledgement of human biology should disabuse anyone from thinking otherwise. Of course, we are doing everything we can to fight against our bodies and our natures and we insist that our biology has nothing to do with our being. But, the fact remains, we are love-seeking, baby-making, long-term fulfillment desiring beings and for thousands of years we've gained great pleasure from both marrying and from having children. Besides, bearing fruit is the only way any species can thrive and sustain over time. But yeah, it's just "a strong social force".
Part of the issue with overturning Roe v Wade is that even a wanted pregnancy can present a threat to the mother's health or the baby can be sick. Strict abortion rules prevent the mother from choosing to save herself/prevent needless suffering for her baby. And women get told all the time that if you didn't want the baby then you shouldn't have done the act to create the baby in the first place. Ok then.
Lynn, situations where the mother’s life are in danger from a pregnancy are quite rare. All of life has risk. I can die today just by going to the store to get bread. I realize getting groceries and carrying a life to term are two different things, but my point is we cannot avoid risk if we (and our children) are to live. And, let’s face it, Roe was never about the edge case of a mother’s life endangered. I appreciate your concerns but we cannot be a society that makes its laws based on the worst possible and least likely outcomes. As I said in the video, celibacy isn’t the answer. Finding security and stability in marriage is. Have all the sex you like. Have kids. Make a life for yourself and your family. Find fulfillment.
I was never going to have kids regardless due to having a hereditary condition that I would likely pass on to my children. But yes, you do need to take into account the 'edge cases' because the USA already has an incredibly high rate of maternal mortality relative to other nations, this will just add to the problem.
I hear you. I guess my question would be, why do we assume a higher maternal mortality rate than other countries is an issue of legislation? Why would we not rather look at our approach to health care to see what's causing that? I agree we need to pay attention to edge cases and exceptions, but I disagree that should naturally lead to legislation. We've got a lot of complex issues to deal with in our society but we love one simple solution: legislation. The society can't hold together if our go-to fix is to legislate our problems away. It just doesn't work that way.
@@MikeGastin I think you need to review the information again. Maternal mortality rates in the US have increased, from 17.4 in 2018 to 31.8 in 2021, with the largest increase occurring from 2019 to 2021. So a mother’s life being in danger is not rare and is increasing.
Okay, thanks for that. My point still stands: legislation doesn't fix maternal mortality rates. Why is it that more pregnant women are dying now than from 2018? What's changed? Why is American healthcare so abysmal compared to the rest of the world? What is *causing* our problems? And please don't tell me R v W because that was last year and frankly all it did was push the issue to the states, which a great number still allow for termination. You see, to know the truth, you actually need to do real research other than throw out a statistic and accuse your opponent of being lazy. You need to dig into the "why", which I've yet to hear from anyone in these comments. Why are pregnant mothers throughout the developed world are more likely to live than pregnant mothers in the USA? Doesn't that strike you as odd?
I think you make some good points overall, but I'm not sure we had it "figured out" since the beginning. If everyone was happy in previous generations we wouldn't have the situation we're in now. I'm no historian, but it seems as though in the past a lot of women felt trapped in whatever relationship they found themselves in. Maybe that's just modern progressive spin on the past though. But I don't think pushing everyone to marriage and kids is the ultimate answer either. Also, I do know that government sanctioned marriages are a relatively recent invention in human history.
Good point. I don't think I was advocating that we push anyone into marriage and kids. I was just saying that the modern female response to the terrible state of the society is to choose to be celibate. My response is that society already found a way for men and women to live together in safety and peace ... and a way for them to bear children, too. It's not perfect because people are not perfect. However, there have been billions of successful marriages through the ages and that has to stack up against living a life of lonely celibacy.
Ngl this guy talks like he listens to women just enough to take everything literal, kind of. A bear over a man? What!?!? But bears are violent and dangerous!?! OK great. -_- If you don't get it by now you don't care about any answer a woman would give to explain the fear of men. He's talking about having children when he acknowledged bodily autonomy is threatened so that we can make that decision in a space that is safe for everyone involved including the child. 'I'll get heat on this one" like you said something profound. You didn't. This came up in my rec and i don't have a problem with opposing views but you actively acknowledge the conversion being had but scoot passed the point with yappery that we would all agree is nice to be in a union that is best for all parties but a particular party is making that extremely hard and dangerous. You're ignorance will not protect you from the men women are afraid of.
@@BenjiFriedman because you've missed the fundamental point of the argument even after I put it in plain text. At this point I can't tell if you really don't get it or you just like to hear your opinions shouted back at you and everything else filters out. Good luck to you and that
@@mizzzlicia1832 That was a lot more words to still not say anything. It sort of sounds like you're trying to make a point about something? I'm curious what your point actually is
Ladies corroborate? This appears to me (40's single male, California) from their emails begging me to return to the platform, that bumble unrolling a new paid feature called "opening moves" that will allow men to start conversations??? ← yes, real, apparently. So $ from men too lol. Can't speak to current gender ratio, but previously bumble was high in female bots/catfish/pig-butchers. Also, even me being in the 🌉 market, _very few_ locals ......very geographically impractical.
Folks know full well how dangerous wild bears really are: that is the point of the thought experiment
Maybe. Most of the people interviewed on the streets these days can't even name their state capitol. I get it and I don't think the ladies are clueless but the fact is they've all met plenty of men and not one bear.
@@MikeGastin are you not hearing what you are being told or are you being knowingly obtuse? people know that wild animals are dangerous, that's why they say that they would rather be chased by a bear than a man!
I said "I get it". I'm just positing that most people probably have no idea what a bear encounter is like. AND, I also understand that the meme works because it's not really abut the bear. The women are stating that regardless of how dangerous a bear is, they'd rather face one than a man. I get it. What's the problem?
@@MikeGastin thanks for the reply, I was unclear from the video how seriously you took the idea: a lot of people have misinterpreted it. I appreciate the verification.
Fair enough. It was an unplanned comment and I can see how people would take it as a slam on women. I do think there's something deeper going on with that meme and it is troubling. Thanks for giving me a chance to explain/respond. :)
Right outside my window there's a bird pulling out all the stops trying to get someone to check out his nest, and a rabbit doing his best Pepe Le Pew impression. Nature's got it covered.
It’s wired in, isn’t it? 😉
This video came up in my autoplay and I figured I'd share my thoughts:
I get the impression that you have a lot of resistance towards listening to what women actually have to say on this matter and the larger conversation of them withdrawing romantic/sexual interest from men. Immediately, I get the impression that you conflate women who have withdrawn from these things as "feminists," and that's not true unless you're defining feminism as withdrawing affection from men. A lot of these women do not consider themselves feminists in the slightest, but they have become exhausted by what seems like a system that really does not work in their favor.
What's actually happening is women are in cross-conversation in ways they've never been. We are seeing in real time what happens to women who marry men young, become mothers, and give their entire lives over to the idea of raising a family. So many of these women reached a certain point where their husbands left them, and they are now left with decades of gaps in their work history, and they're finding themselves struggling in ways they never thought they would. So, more and more women are recognizing that very little is in it for them. Roe V. Wade being overturned actually just made that all much, much worse. We are increasingly hearing people argue that women should return home to a more "traditional" structure that never really existed.
It's easy to say that all of these women are just out there being loose, and suddenly, they're changing their minds because that maps very well with misogyny. What's happening is that women are noticing that fewer people see their humanity. We normalize misogyny like it's absolutely nothing. And people refuse to listen to women even when they're clear about how they feel. It's not that a wild animal is necessarily safer than a human man, it's that when a wild animal attacks a woman, people are pretty quick to put that animal down. When their attackers are human men, we debate about it. His future is considered. His family is considered. Maybe she deserved it, perhaps she shouldn't have put herself in that position. And men greatly underestimate the commonality of abuse. And when we try to talk about it, people continue to argue that it could not possibly be as bad as we're saying it is. Not understanding that even if a woman was only victimized by 2 or three men, it's the thousands of other men who provided cover for them that make them distrustful of all men. So for many women, the idea of being in the woods with a man is immediately scary. You know that your survival may or may not depend on being sexually available to said man, and that's if he's willing to be on your side. I know I've very rarely been helped by men who didn't feel owed access to my body in some way. And I think most women intimately know this but won't express it because, again, other men will defend it. That's what happened in this entire discourse. It didn't matter what women were saying; women are just expected to accept that most men aren't dangerous despite the reality of those who've harmed them often being defended. So many women are discouraged from reporting violent men.
And I'm sure this was intentional, but in case you really don't get it: the problem with the Bumble Ads is the same reason a lot of women are withdrawing from relationships with men. There is an increased effort to pressure women into being sexually available to men. So when women stop using Bumble, and people in our government argue that every woman should have a child, Roe V Wade is overturned, and your dating apps are telling you to no longer be celibate, it's not hard to figure out how people get the impression that they're being pushed into relationships with men. It feels forceful, especially when, simultaneously, absolutely nothing is done to make having children easier in this country. A lot of people avoid having children because it's not feasible for them to. Financially or otherwise. So, increasingly, women are being pressured to sacrifice their entire identities for reasons other than wanting to have children for themselves. There are far too many people who refuse to hear what women are saying, and many women get the impression that eventually, things will become much more forceful. So, Bumble shouldn't be adding to that.
One major thing I'll agree with you about is that Bumble's feminism has always been about corporate greed. It's always been degenerate. Women aren't on dating apps en masse for a reason. It was never going to be a solution to anything.
agreed agreed agreed
Cry some more, we don't need you either.
I'm not affiliated to Mike, but I do like the few videos I've seen of his views.
I don't agree (or even understand) some of what you're trying to point out. I have to assume that you have had physical violence from men against you? I don't condone or support these men. If that's not your past, then you're "speaking" for a broad group of women? Granted I think a lot of people do this with their topics of passion/concern/interest, so no problem.
That said, the *majority* of men are not violent towards women. Are women more vulnerable to violence from men, yes. Are there stats on men being violent (and not being reported or convicted) against women, yes. Is this wrong, yes. You need to find different men, not give up on the rest of them. NOTE: Those other men may come along with preconceived and biased ideas about having children though.
Don't have sex if you're concerned with having a baby or the future issues, with a partner after having a baby? You can try a long-term relationship (marriage) with limited or no sexual intimacy? Keep working your career and you may find a fullfilling path through life - to afford whatever you think you might be missing out on (with kids). Perhaps you will also find a man that's okay with this and you won't have to worry so much? If you don't think a "no sex" relationship is possible (or wanted) then go with protection. If it fails, then you're unlucky in your desire to not have a baby - see start of paragraph... [Thinking about the violence perpertrated in killing an unprotected baby is good homework towards thinking of a future family. I'm not saying whether women should have access to abortions or not... I'm saying if you ever have a child, there may be a moment as you watch them grow, that you can suddenly realise the chances in this life - and it can bring thoughts to the literal millions of humans that have been murdered before us].
In terms of women being pressured into having kids... well duh! that's the only options as humans that we have. You hopefully understand it's "normal". In that the majority of creatures on this planet do some form of reproduction to survive - with the majority being the female of the species. Men didn't invent the system, but we are the other half of the equation and at times it seems with a higher desire to proliferate the species (possibly with less thinking involved than the female humans). So, of course society and Governments want new babies to propel their country/society forwards (ie. production and taxes). How else do humans continue on this planet? "You're getting older and you and you partner with no kids, are ready to retire... and then the Government says - Sorry, we've got no more money handouts for the elderly folks now that there are no more kids, no one is working or paying taxes.
I'm reading "handmaids tale" vibes from your last bit about the men who will force babies onto women into the future? Don't know if that's where it's headed. I won't be lining up or supporting it, just saying.
Anyone who has left their relationship chances to a digital connection App, surely understands it's just that - a chance (bad or good). They might just as randomly chance meet someone at the shops, bump into someone in the street, or have a common interest in some topic. How people meet and whether they stay together is complex and not always determined from the initial moment. Of course, these old methods of physically meeting people, taking time, energy, situations, communicating, investment in your physical persona to other's judgements or similar alignments can end up to costing in time and money for getting to know someone. It takes less effort to swipe a screen showing a book-cover version of others (and themselves). So, you have to way-up that both situations need "spidey-senses" to detect the wrong match and even then someone could fool you.
Sorry.
The world can be very unfair.
“The idea that parenthood and raising children should be the central focus of every person's adult life. It is a strong social force and includes a collection of beliefs so embedded that they have come to be seen as true.”
Laura Carroll, The Baby Matrix
Not sure your point since all you've done is drop a quote without comment. Carroll's logic is flawed. The idea in question is not just "a strong social force". It is completely embedded in our very bodies, our emotions, and our desires. We are not highly driven, highly fertile reproductive organisms by social pressure and a simple acknowledgement of human biology should disabuse anyone from thinking otherwise. Of course, we are doing everything we can to fight against our bodies and our natures and we insist that our biology has nothing to do with our being. But, the fact remains, we are love-seeking, baby-making, long-term fulfillment desiring beings and for thousands of years we've gained great pleasure from both marrying and from having children. Besides, bearing fruit is the only way any species can thrive and sustain over time. But yeah, it's just "a strong social force".
Part of the issue with overturning Roe v Wade is that even a wanted pregnancy can present a threat to the mother's health or the baby can be sick. Strict abortion rules prevent the mother from choosing to save herself/prevent needless suffering for her baby.
And women get told all the time that if you didn't want the baby then you shouldn't have done the act to create the baby in the first place. Ok then.
Lynn, situations where the mother’s life are in danger from a pregnancy are quite rare. All of life has risk. I can die today just by going to the store to get bread. I realize getting groceries and carrying a life to term are two different things, but my point is we cannot avoid risk if we (and our children) are to live. And, let’s face it, Roe was never about the edge case of a mother’s life endangered. I appreciate your concerns but we cannot be a society that makes its laws based on the worst possible and least likely outcomes. As I said in the video, celibacy isn’t the answer. Finding security and stability in marriage is. Have all the sex you like. Have kids. Make a life for yourself and your family. Find fulfillment.
I was never going to have kids regardless due to having a hereditary condition that I would likely pass on to my children. But yes, you do need to take into account the 'edge cases' because the USA already has an incredibly high rate of maternal mortality relative to other nations, this will just add to the problem.
I hear you. I guess my question would be, why do we assume a higher maternal mortality rate than other countries is an issue of legislation? Why would we not rather look at our approach to health care to see what's causing that? I agree we need to pay attention to edge cases and exceptions, but I disagree that should naturally lead to legislation. We've got a lot of complex issues to deal with in our society but we love one simple solution: legislation. The society can't hold together if our go-to fix is to legislate our problems away. It just doesn't work that way.
@@MikeGastin I think you need to review the information again. Maternal mortality rates in the US have increased, from 17.4 in 2018 to 31.8 in 2021, with the largest increase occurring from 2019 to 2021. So a mother’s life being in danger is not rare and is increasing.
Okay, thanks for that. My point still stands: legislation doesn't fix maternal mortality rates. Why is it that more pregnant women are dying now than from 2018? What's changed? Why is American healthcare so abysmal compared to the rest of the world? What is *causing* our problems? And please don't tell me R v W because that was last year and frankly all it did was push the issue to the states, which a great number still allow for termination. You see, to know the truth, you actually need to do real research other than throw out a statistic and accuse your opponent of being lazy. You need to dig into the "why", which I've yet to hear from anyone in these comments. Why are pregnant mothers throughout the developed world are more likely to live than pregnant mothers in the USA? Doesn't that strike you as odd?
I think you make some good points overall, but I'm not sure we had it "figured out" since the beginning. If everyone was happy in previous generations we wouldn't have the situation we're in now. I'm no historian, but it seems as though in the past a lot of women felt trapped in whatever relationship they found themselves in. Maybe that's just modern progressive spin on the past though. But I don't think pushing everyone to marriage and kids is the ultimate answer either. Also, I do know that government sanctioned marriages are a relatively recent invention in human history.
Good point. I don't think I was advocating that we push anyone into marriage and kids. I was just saying that the modern female response to the terrible state of the society is to choose to be celibate. My response is that society already found a way for men and women to live together in safety and peace ... and a way for them to bear children, too. It's not perfect because people are not perfect. However, there have been billions of successful marriages through the ages and that has to stack up against living a life of lonely celibacy.
Ngl this guy talks like he listens to women just enough to take everything literal, kind of.
A bear over a man? What!?!? But bears are violent and dangerous!?! OK great. -_-
If you don't get it by now you don't care about any answer a woman would give to explain the fear of men.
He's talking about having children when he acknowledged bodily autonomy is threatened so that we can make that decision in a space that is safe for everyone involved including the child.
'I'll get heat on this one" like you said something profound. You didn't. This came up in my rec and i don't have a problem with opposing views but you actively acknowledge the conversion being had but scoot passed the point with yappery that we would all agree is nice to be in a union that is best for all parties but a particular party is making that extremely hard and dangerous.
You're ignorance will not protect you from the men women are afraid of.
He said "I'm gonna get some hate and some heat on this one" at the end because his recommendation is marriage and not hook ups
@@BenjiFriedman no married man has ever killed his wife. You're right, what was I thinking.
@@mizzzlicia1832 Ok...? random sarcastic response to something neither I nor this youtuber said or is talking about
@@BenjiFriedman because you've missed the fundamental point of the argument even after I put it in plain text. At this point I can't tell if you really don't get it or you just like to hear your opinions shouted back at you and everything else filters out. Good luck to you and that
@@mizzzlicia1832 That was a lot more words to still not say anything. It sort of sounds like you're trying to make a point about something? I'm curious what your point actually is
Ladies corroborate? This appears to me (40's single male, California) from their emails begging me to return to the platform, that bumble unrolling a new paid feature called "opening moves" that will allow men to start conversations??? ← yes, real, apparently. So $ from men too lol.
Can't speak to current gender ratio, but previously bumble was high in female bots/catfish/pig-butchers. Also, even me being in the 🌉 market, _very few_ locals ......very geographically impractical.