61% of single women in America are not looking to get into a new relationship compared to 38% of men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

The outcome for the kids if they had two parents and lost their mother is still grim.

On the other hand most SMBC’s know this risk going in and so do the needful on life insurance and really carefully and intentionally picking guardians— and no one can second guess those choices and try to fight them in court because there isn’t a dad’s family to get involved.

It’s not for everyone. But if you have the resources and your choices are to marry a lower-tier man and be trapped, emotionally legally and financially, or to do it on your own? Do it on your own.

There is a third choice. Don't have kids.

There is. There’s also a choice to still have kids and do so without the input of a net-negative father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

The outcome for the kids if they had two parents and lost their mother is still grim.

On the other hand most SMBC’s know this risk going in and so do the needful on life insurance and really carefully and intentionally picking guardians— and no one can second guess those choices and try to fight them in court because there isn’t a dad’s family to get involved.

It’s not for everyone. But if you have the resources and your choices are to marry a lower-tier man and be trapped, emotionally legally and financially, or to do it on your own? Do it on your own.

Why would someone so wealthy that she can afford a housekeeper AND a nanny be relegated to the lower tier man in marriage? Something does not compute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

The outcome for the kids if they had two parents and lost their mother is still grim.

On the other hand most SMBC’s know this risk going in and so do the needful on life insurance and really carefully and intentionally picking guardians— and no one can second guess those choices and try to fight them in court because there isn’t a dad’s family to get involved.

It’s not for everyone. But if you have the resources and your choices are to marry a lower-tier man and be trapped, emotionally legally and financially, or to do it on your own? Do it on your own.

Meh but they still aren't orphans. Better than a SIL doing it begrudgingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

So? This happens to men all the time, especially divorced men who are estranged from their kids. And men are far more likely to get less help from their extended families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

So? This happens to men all the time, especially divorced men who are estranged from their kids. And men are far more likely to get less help from their extended families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage makes sense for women who want to have families, and can have financial benefits if they live in an expensive area where buying a home or raising kids on a single salary might be challenging even if reasonably well paid.

Outside of that, marriage is often not a good deal for women, and a way for them to get tied down to someone who is unlikely to care for them as much as they expect to be cared for BY them, especially as you age.

So for women who doesn't want to or cannot have kids, and is financially stable, the ONLY situation in which a longterm relationship or marriage makes sense is if she meets someone who truly makes her happy and would be a good partner and bring something to the table. But by your late 30s and onward, the number of unmarried men who fit that description is very, very small. The ones who are out there might also have baggage you don't want to deal with (divorced or widowed, potentially children from a previous marriage, demanding jobs that are not conducive to compromise or relationships).

What is the value proposition for them? There really isn't one.

Meanwhile a lot of men in this age group want or even need women to do the stuff women do in relationships all the time -- make the home a nice place to be, maintain social relationships, plan vacations, encourage their partners to go to the doctor and dentist, etc. Women don't need someone to do that stuff. Many men do. It's honestly sad.

We need a new vision for being a man that brings more to the table than sperm and a job. Men need more soft skills that would actually benefit other people.

I'm a hetero man who has been married twice. Is it really true men need women to make doctor's appointments and maintain relationships, etc.. Neither of my wives did this stuff for me. My male friends who remained single seemed to get along fine.

Marriage can be very challenging. It's hard to believe men are getting married and remarried because they can't take care of themselves. How did they survive nefore getting married?
Of course, I have no experience dating men so maybe I'm missing something?

I would say that unless men want children, marriage is not such a great deal for them either. Traditional women's tasks (e.g., cooking, cleaning, etc.) can be easily outsourced nowadays with meal prep if you don't like cooking, takeout, no-iron shirts, laundry, weekly cleaning service. Sex too is pretty accessible without marriage.

Fair. My husband and I would both be fine if we got divorced. We live mostly independent lives. We would be fine financially. We are both capable of outsourcing household tasks. Neither of us would have a hard time finding casual sex. He would want 50% custody and would theoretically have to adhere to an actual parenting schedule, which would provide me free time to see my friends and return to my hobbies for the first time since we've had kids.

[Anonymous]

Studies have shown that men’s time spent on housework goes down when they get married, and women’s on goes up (including women who work full time outside the home).

I also think men pretend they can’t survive without sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

The outcome for the kids if they had two parents and lost their mother is still grim.

On the other hand most SMBC’s know this risk going in and so do the needful on life insurance and really carefully and intentionally picking guardians— and no one can second guess those choices and try to fight them in court because there isn’t a dad’s family to get involved.

It’s not for everyone. But if you have the resources and your choices are to marry a lower-tier man and be trapped, emotionally legally and financially, or to do it on your own? Do it on your own.

Why would someone so wealthy that she can afford a housekeeper AND a nanny be relegated to the lower tier man in marriage? Something does not compute.

Plenty of successful women don’t want to marry less successful men, and there are only so many successful men out there. Before they settle, they choose independence.

And a nanny and a housekeeper hardly makes you 1% wealthy. I know SES’ and gs-15s with both and they’re not renowned for being extremely well paying.

[Anonymous]

I will never understand why people hand-wring about this. Marriage was never designed to benefit women. In the modern context it sometimes can, but the design was by and for men.

[Anonymous]

Studies have shown that men’s time spent on housework goes down when they get married, and women’s on goes up (including women who work full time outside the home).

I also think men pretend they can’t survive without sex.

What studies have shown that men's time spent on housework goes down?

What men are pretending they cannot survive without sex? Look at most of the posts on this board, sister. Men surviving on little to no sex = married in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Studies have shown that men’s time spent on housework goes down when they get married, and women’s on goes up (including women who work full time outside the home).

I also think men pretend they can’t survive without sex.

What studies have shown that men's time spent on housework goes down?

What men are pretending they cannot survive without sex? Look at most of the posts on this board, sister. Men surviving on little to no sex = married in the DC area.

It's hard to imagine that most men don't spend less time on housework after marriage.

I concede the second point. I think there is a correlation between these two factors. It's not uncommon for women to feel overwhelmed by the unequal distribution of household chores and parenting responsibilities, especially when they're also working outside the home. This imbalance leads to resentment, which in turn kills their attraction to their husband. We've all seen it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Feminism is not the opposite of being a slave to a selfish, needy male.

It’s equality. Equal opportunity in education, jobs, voting, rule of law.

There has ALWAYS been equality of life habits and homelife and parenting.

Males and Females choose every day to clean up after themselves, teach their kids something, call a friend or family member, make a meal for others, etc. Or not. One can also choose to leave a mess, ignore their kids, never socialize, and whine about how they’re hungry all the time.

Touché

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Single men are far more likely than single women to be looking for a relationship or dates – 61% vs. 38%. This gender gap is especially apparent among older singles"

Interesting development. What do we think is causing this?

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/08/PSDT_08.20.20.dating-relationships.full_.report.pdf

I could see that being the case here n the east coast amongst black and white women, but not with other demographics and not with the rest of the country.

pew is left biased so Unf their surveys don’t get out of their bubbles.

The survey is actually nationally representative. It might not fit your own experiences, but it's statistically reliable. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/methodology-38-2/

Unless they’re sending it out to synagogue, temple, tribal, Catholic, other christian churches, families or women and not just leftist urban enclaves they’re missing 50%+ of the population.

I didn’t receive a Pew survey ever, have you? Surveys are surveys. You send them to your bubbles or friends or network. More of the same.

This is an absolutely bonkers thing to think. Is that actually how you think statistically representative surveys are conducted?

The ATP is not conducted in church. It's a randomized sample of Americans drawn from postal records.

"In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based recruitment. Invitations were sent to a random, address-based sample (ABS) of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. In each household, the adult with the next birthday was asked to go online to complete a survey, at the end of which they were invited to join the panel. For a random half-sample of invitations, households without internet access were instructed to return a postcard. These households were contacted by telephone and sent a tablet if they agreed to participate. A total of 9,396 were invited to join the panel, and 8,778 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 18,720 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 10,764 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted."

So you have to join some ATP (what’s that stand for) union or group and then you do ALL the surveys the think tank(s) send out with your demo? Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO the answer women are giving are how they feel right now, *in the very moment* they are being asked. Most likely because they have been burned/hurt by a recent relationship.

It’s not some immutably principled stand against being partnered. Given enough time, most women will end up in a relationship again. Even the ones who say they loooove being single.

Except the data directly contradicts that, since older women are overwhelmingly choosing to be single, more than any other demographic. And those are the women who know the most what a marriage and partnership with a man will entail

A lack of potential suitors that qualify doesn’t mean they are against being in a relationship, though. That’s just a reaction to the circumstance they find themselves in.

Should the right fella appear, they no longer have such strong feelings about not geting re-partnered. The data shows that silver marriages are booming too.

Except these women are saying they have no interest in dating and aren’t currently looking, in contrast to men, who are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every political movement is about acquiring as much power as possible. There is no movement that goes 'lets acquire as much power as possible and then back off a little bit'. Even if it intended to when it started.

I don’t think there is a more nakedly explicit power grab than the so-called 4B movement. “We will end sexual reproduction and thereby civilization as we know it unless our demands are met” is INSANE!

It’s actually perfectly sane, and what’s INSANE is women tolerating men’s disrespect and bad behavior when women hold all the reproductive power. Women are finally waking up to how much valuable labor they do for men, and taking stock of how little they get back in return. That’s why Shera Seven, “Sprinkle Sprinkle”, Princella the Queenmaker, and 4B are all hugely popular among Gen Z and Millennial women. Andrew Tate and Kevin Samuels laid bare how many men truly think about women and the men were giggling about it thinking they’d gotten away with something. Now you’re seeing the response 😌