Do you think feminism has been a net positive or net negative for relationships?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

Women (and men) don't need to put up with BS from immature, selfish partners.

Most women would choose to be with an evolved partner who brings love and respect to the relationship. If you aren't capable of that, don't blame women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

It's almost like you can't read.

The long post is literally about a man, and others like him, who desperately wants marriage. In fact needs it to gain access to some basic aspects of the human experience (having kids, having friends, feeling like life is meaningful). But because feminism allows women the choice, these men cannot find a wife by offering her the essential protection and access to money that marriage used to offer women. He has to actually be a man worth marrying. And even though he actively WANTS to get married, in fact is bitter that he is not married, he STILL won't do the work necessary to be a man worth marrying.

Both men and women want to get married. Most women and many men are willing to make some effort to make themselves worthy of a partner. Marriage still offers immense benefits for both people in terms of a foundation for having kids, financial stability, and longterm companionship. But there is this group of men (of which you are a part) who just refuses to accept the idea that in order to access those benefits, you might actually have to offer a potential partner more than a warm body. Mysteriously! You would actually be a happier, more fulfilled person in general if you worked on yourself to make yourself a worthy partner, even it didn't lead to marriage! But you won't do it. For some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

This was always true for men of means, even fairly modest means— there’s a reason for all those brothels in Westerns. The only difference is that women can be legally and financially independent. So, yes, I’ll land on the side of that being better.

…. And some men want kids! I guess some people here just think if men as one dimensional sex obsessed bots, which obviously isn’t true.

Feminism has been good for both men and women if they find the right partners. It’s no longer a means of supporting themselves regather a way for both to have fulfilled lives.

Some people here really have made bad choices in spouses!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

Women (and men) don't need to put up with BS from immature, selfish partners.

Most women would choose to be with an evolved partner who brings love and respect to the relationship. If you aren't capable of that, don't blame women.

Agreed. Same is true for men. Most men don’t want a leech who just sees their bank account and dick, but rather a true partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

Women (and men) don't need to put up with BS from immature, selfish partners.

Most women would choose to be with an evolved partner who brings love and respect to the relationship. If you aren't capable of that, don't blame women.

Agreed. Same is true for men. Most men don’t want a leech who just sees their bank account and dick, but rather a true partner.

Seconded. And that is why I think feminism is a net benefit for relationships. Good men and women can get partners who see them as an equal.

If men are just using you for sex or women are just using you for free dinners, you don't bring much to the table and need to reflect on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

Women (and men) don't need to put up with BS from immature, selfish partners.

Most women would choose to be with an evolved partner who brings love and respect to the relationship. If you aren't capable of that, don't blame women.

Why would I blame women when I'm a happily married woman? can you see past the tip of your own nose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

It's almost like you can't read.

The long post is literally about a man, and others like him, who desperately wants marriage. In fact needs it to gain access to some basic aspects of the human experience (having kids, having friends, feeling like life is meaningful). But because feminism allows women the choice, these men cannot find a wife by offering her the essential protection and access to money that marriage used to offer women. He has to actually be a man worth marrying. And even though he actively WANTS to get married, in fact is bitter that he is not married, he STILL won't do the work necessary to be a man worth marrying.

Both men and women want to get married. Most women and many men are willing to make some effort to make themselves worthy of a partner. Marriage still offers immense benefits for both people in terms of a foundation for having kids, financial stability, and longterm companionship. But there is this group of men (of which you are a part) who just refuses to accept the idea that in order to access those benefits, you might actually have to offer a potential partner more than a warm body. Mysteriously! You would actually be a happier, more fulfilled person in general if you worked on yourself to make yourself a worthy partner, even it didn't lead to marriage! But you won't do it. For some reason.

No, men and women don't want to get married. It's like you live in delululand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

Women (and men) don't need to put up with BS from immature, selfish partners.

Most women would choose to be with an evolved partner who brings love and respect to the relationship. If you aren't capable of that, don't blame women.

Agreed. Same is true for men. Most men don’t want a leech who just sees their bank account and dick, but rather a true partner.

Seconded. And that is why I think feminism is a net benefit for relationships. Good men and women can get partners who see them as an equal.

If men are just using you for sex or women are just using you for free dinners, you don't bring much to the table and need to reflect on that.

Well said. One of the most obvious benefits of feminism to relationships is that it makes them less transactional, which can only be a positive. I would never claim my marriage is perfect, but when we do have conflict, I think it really helps that my husband knows I didn't have to marry him for money, and I know he didn't have to marry me for sex. We know we chose each other, and that our commitment was based on more than sex and money, but a desire to build a home and raise kids together. It makes for a much more solid connection, IMO, and makes it easier to work through challenges as they arise.

If I'd married a man just because it was the only way for me to guarantee myself or my kids a home and food, I think I'd probably just mentally check out of it once the kids were born. I doubt I'd have any interest in sex with someone like that after kids. So he'd either have to force it on me or go get it elsewhere. That doesn't sound like a good marriage for me or for him, frankly.

[Anonymous]

If you don’t believe women deserve equal rights you don’t deserve a date, kiss or sex. Boy bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t believe women deserve equal rights you don’t deserve a date, kiss or sex. Boy bye.

Dude, I'm a woman. Why is that so hard to believe? But I'm not seeing my friends reap the benefits of all this egalitarian equal rights. Women seem less happy and more stressed than ever before having to do it all. Just look at the relationships page here to see how happy women are. Girl, bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

It's almost like you can't read.

The long post is literally about a man, and others like him, who desperately wants marriage. In fact needs it to gain access to some basic aspects of the human experience (having kids, having friends, feeling like life is meaningful). But because feminism allows women the choice, these men cannot find a wife by offering her the essential protection and access to money that marriage used to offer women. He has to actually be a man worth marrying. And even though he actively WANTS to get married, in fact is bitter that he is not married, he STILL won't do the work necessary to be a man worth marrying.

Both men and women want to get married. Most women and many men are willing to make some effort to make themselves worthy of a partner. Marriage still offers immense benefits for both people in terms of a foundation for having kids, financial stability, and longterm companionship. But there is this group of men (of which you are a part) who just refuses to accept the idea that in order to access those benefits, you might actually have to offer a potential partner more than a warm body. Mysteriously! You would actually be a happier, more fulfilled person in general if you worked on yourself to make yourself a worthy partner, even it didn't lead to marriage! But you won't do it. For some reason.

No, men and women don't want to get married. It's like you live in delululand.

Some don't but most still do. Only 15% of young men without kids, and 21% of young women without kids, told Pew that they do not want to get married. Women are more ambivalent about marriage than men: 45% of women want to get married and 32% say they are unsure, while 51% of men want to get married with 28% saying they are unsure.

Those "unsure" numbers are interesting and I think there is much to be discovered inside of them. I won't venture a guess as to what people are actually thinking when they say they are unsure if they want to get married. But I will say that when I was in my 20s, I would definitely have been in the "unsure" category, no question. What it meant for me is that I had no interest in marriage just for its own sake, just to be married, but I was very open to the idea of marrying someone I loved and wanted to partner with. In my 20s though, I had no idea if I'd ever find a person like that, and in fact had dated a number of guys who made me wonder if a man like that even existed. Then I met a man like that at 29, was married in my earlier 30s, and now am a parent. I have zero regrets about these choices and am glad it worked out the way it did. But if I had not met my husband, I also feel confident I could have lived a fulfilling and meaningful life as a single woman. Like no question about that either. And that was where the ambivalence came from. I didn't understand the point of deciding independently that I wanted to get married -- it's something you necessarily have to do with another person, and who that person is will dictate whether you want it or not.

It's like asking people "do you want to go into business with another person?" Umm... maybe? Who is this person? What is the business? What resources do we have for building the business? Etc. It is not a decision you can make in a vacuum.

So I would guess some percent of those undecideds are people like me. They would like to get married IF they find someone worth marrying, but otherwise do not want to get married. This seems like a very reasonable approach to life to me, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t believe women deserve equal rights you don’t deserve a date, kiss or sex. Boy bye.

Dude, I'm a woman. Why is that so hard to believe? But I'm not seeing my friends reap the benefits of all this egalitarian equal rights. Women seem less happy and more stressed than ever before having to do it all. Just look at the relationships page here to see how happy women are. Girl, bye.

The women who are unhappy and stressed are usually those still married or partnered up.

I know my own depression and stress levels dropped to near zero once I kicked my xH out. I didn’t realize until after he was gone just how much of a negative impact he had on my mental health and my life overall. And I don’t even think he’s a “bad” guy, I think he’s a standard Gen X man who is doing what his dad did and can’t understand why I’m not doing what his mom did.

I think reality is that Gen X/Millennial/Gen Z have been transition generations where we haven’t quite figured out how to re-distribute labor and create meaningful marriages beyond just popping out and raising kids to work on the family farm. I do have high hopes for Gen Alpha. I’m raising my daughters to look critically at how boys/men behave, and choose based off of their behavior. Also teaching them how to develop a fulfilling life beyond just boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

This alleged social contract works for whom? Women would not have ran for the hills the moment we had the opportunity if the contract was working for us.

If you think people won't be in AI relationships in the future and think somehow everyone is going to fall in line and be the ideal partner, you're fooling yourself. Men won't need women who nag them and women don't want men who constantly disappoint them. This is the future.

I think this is actually fine. Look, there’s always going to be people who aren’t desirable. There’s always going to be men who can’t step it up, can’t hold a job, can’t be a good partner. There’s always going to be people with mental health issues.

It is WAY better for those guys to partner up with a robot, so they’re not out there harassing and assaulting women and girls. If the robots keeps them at home and away from my daughters, that’s perfectly fine with me.

Undesirable men have always found ways to have sex - sex workers, assault, purchasing child brides, etc. Better for us all if they use a robot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

A contract needs to benefit both parties. If it doesn't, it needs to be renegotiated

But we're reached a point where relationships don't offer people anything of value.

Then let relationships end and the institution of marriage die.

We don't have to "let" anything happen, it's already happening. The writing is on the wall but some of you are still stubbornly arguing that it isn't.

So what? What are you not getting about the fact that we don't care?

Of course you care because you're in here arguing that the future of relationships is great because everyone is equal. When the reality is more and more people are opting out and not bothering at all. So great!

The people opting out of equal relationships are the exact reason things are better for everyone else. You don't belong in a relationship if you can't handle equal power dynamics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it's a negative for relationships. That doesn't meant there aren't other positives. But for relationships, no. Now women don't need men and men don't need women.

Do you think relationships are better when they reflect “needs“? I think the fact that I don’t “need” my husband to support me financially, sign for any business deal I do, or give me permission for medical treatment makes our relationship much better. Is your hypothesis that in places where women do not have rights, relationship relationships are better? Because, at least a news reporting, there seem to be a lot of murders and suicides of women being abused.

The question one is it better for relationships. No. It's not. Men can get the sex they want by never marrying and women can support themselves and kids if they want them. Neither "needs" a relationship to get their needs met.

People should never need to be together. They should want to be together.

Except that was the point of the social contract between men and women that worked for eons. And now that's broken. Men can get sex whenever they want and women can support themselves. There really is no point to a relationship for most people. Soon there will be bots so men won't even need a real woman. You can decide if that's better or not.

I don't think this is true, because men as a group haven't done the work to become more balanced people, but women have. Men can't get sex whenever they want because it requires a woman to want to have sex with them (and women have more choice than ever now), and it seems like there are things a lot of men want and either can only get in relationships or vastly prefer to get them in relationships (kids, societal connections and belonging, stability, etc.). Women also seem to prefer getting these in relationships, though it seems on the whole, women who don't find marriage are better able to attain these things than men do.

I think of my BIL who is never married, quite bitter about it, and very lonely. He lacks a lot of social skills that would enable him to build and maintain friendships, doesn't really know how to make his home nice, and absolutely could not raise kids on his own. Then I think of the half dozen female friends I have who are also never married, but still have really lovely lives. They are financially stable and work to give their lives structure and meaning without a spouse. Several of them have had kids on their own and done a good job of figuring out how to make that work (often living near family to ensure greater stability, making enough to afford nannies and other supports to cover childcare gaps). Others instead focus on friendships, travel, and hobbies. They are all very happy. I think all of them would have been happy to marry IF they had found the right person at the right time, but they didn't and demonstrated a lot of resiliency in figuring out how to make it work for them anyway.

Meanwhile my BIL sits around angry at the world for not providing him with a wife to compensate for all his shortcomings. He wanted someone who would not only give him sex, but also children and create a comfortable home for him and manage his social life and cook his meals. He also would have needed a woman who would do all that while also earning an income, because he's a low earner who is often unemployed and would not have been able to support a family on his own. My MIL often laments his "bad luck" in not finding a partner but the truth is that I've never met a woman who would be willing to take all that on. He has had several lengthy and somewhat serious relationships but they don't last because he'll start out on his best behavior and then as he reveals himself to her, she realizes what she's taking on and leaves. One of his ex girlfriends was a single mom in her 40s -- she chose to stay a single mom rather than take on BIL as essentially a second dependent. More recently he dated a woman in her late 40s who never had kids and likely didn't have a ton of other romantic prospects. That one lasted two years but ultimately she decided she'd rather be alone than deal with BIL. And I've heard of other stories like this for other men. The women who reject them do fine even if it means being alone. The men don't.

The biggest problem with feminism is that some men have not stepped up to the plate and bettered themselves to make themselves worthy of women and marriage. When women have the choice to support themselves and be alone, it might not be their first choice but they can make it work and some even really enjoy it. And men suffer because before feminism, those women would have HAD to marry. Independence was not an option and they would have been really exposed and in danger of starvation or physical harm without a husband. That single mom especially would likely never have chosen to give up the protection of a husband, even one as burdensome as my BIL, because her prospects would have been so bad.

Feminism is a net positive for women in relationships because it has allowed us to choose, and offered us an alternative to marriage if we can't find a man we want to marry. For reasons I frankly don't understand, men have not seized the opportunity to make that same choice for themselves, and there are too many men (see the incel movement if you are looking for examples) still view access to women and a wife as a god-given right even though they've done nothing to earn the love of a woman.

[phone] YES

That's great that you keep telling us why women don't need men. But men don't need women either. If you think this is a plus for society then we'll have to agree to disagree. If you have children you might be wondering what the future will look like for them.

DP. You're getting ahead of yourself worrying about relationships when you can't even read with comprehension. Go finish your education first.