Marriage is a horrible deal for women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And who are these men, exactly? If you took everyone I know from elementary school to a graduate degree and/or have worked with, maybe 4 or 5% hit it big. Meaning million dollar salaries or WSJ stories, etc. The rest have had mediocre to good careers.

So let me guess, that 4 or 5% magically married DCUM posters who are in shape and run around in yoga pants?

Are you asking about men who make over half a million with SAHM? Hedge fund managers, real estate developers, tech sales, partners at law firms, built and sold own businesses etc. but these men are fine with SAHM wives their marriages last until men cheat , on average

The worst are these 200k guys with wives who also make 200k. This is when the woman is exhausted to the brink of insanity as they tend to be cheap and controlling with resources on home aide and the wives are that cheaper “second shift”

I’m a $230K woman and although a second income would be nice I wouldn’t marry anyone who made less than me. I have made a ton of career mistakes so I figure any competent guy should be out earning me by now.

Exhibit A

Sorry this bothers you. But I’m highly educated, worked hard and sacrificed a lot to get to this income. And most of my female friends make more. So I figure any intelligent hard working guy from similar background could have done the same. If he didn’t something is wrong and we are not compatible.

That is like the top 1% of US salaries. What on earth do these people do? Everybody can't be a lawyer or hedge fund manager.

Why should she not require the top 1% if she grew up in these circles?

I am a recent immigrant who moved here as a teenager. All my peers from back home ( all from UMC homes) who moved here before 25 make 200k with the exception of PhD holders in academia and myself ( I stayed home for almost a decade).

Lawyers, doctors, engineers, public accountants, some pharmacists, some specialist nurses 15-20 years into their careers usually make 200k.

PP is talking generalities, and she will know when to make exceptions to her rule. But at 43, if you come from an UMC background, your only excuse for not making 200k should be that it's not that important to you.

If it's important to PP, why should she not require it from a partner?

Some of you think women should get married to any Tom or Dick who shows up. It's better to be single than married to someone who does not share your worldview.

This is such a pervasive problem. Women should have exceptionally high standards but having any at all really triggers some DCUM posters.

A man married to an average woman gets— at least— $500,000 equivalent services of a surrogate and egg donor if they have two children.

A woman married to an average man gets less than nothing, because he is a net drain on her resources. Donor sperm is not especially costly.

If you’re not getting a top 10-15% man, you’re getting a bad deal.

bad math

How much do you think surrogacy and egg donation costs?

The math was off but not too far off. Surrogacy cost $150k; egg donation could be free but with select designer egg up $40k. The issue is not that but the wife also provides free labor for the totality of raising the children! It is a net drain on her time, more so than for men as they tend to underdeliver with household duties. There was in fact an economic research that women put in these duties over $100k/year in lost pension savings, career opportunities and free labor

The real issue is that women magically fail to count their half.

The child is half hers. The pregnancy is half hers. Raising children is half on her. Why are you using a cost basis of services provided to the third party? Does your chef eat with you? Does your housekeeper live in your house? Does your nanny have rights on the child? No. They deliver the service and leave. They don't consume half of it. They don't own half of it. And they certainly don't bother you with their opinions on how it ought to be done.

Ok, assume $300,000 plus designers eggs another $80,000, divide by two (since you’re on about it only being half his) and you’re still starting marriage with a dude who needs to bring an additional $200,000 (after taxes) into the marriage before you even hit zero. Most don’t.

Designer eggs? Are you really bringing designer-quality eggs to the table? If a standard 37-year old DCUM professional woman was a donor in a catalogue, no one would pick her. They don't pick them for the salary. I mean why not include a private jet and silk sheets while you're at it? Everyone totally gets that.

I sure was. Ivy League and healthy is what most people want in donor eggs.

But it’s still irrelevant. The question is whether marriage is a good deal for women. Most men aren’t coming to the table these days with $200,000 ($400,000 when you consider only half is hers) in after tax assets to contribute to start at level.

They start with youth, I think.

Nevertheless, your calculation is utterly at odds with reality. It is mostly women who initiate the marriage and children discussion, not men. Marriage must be pretty valuable to women to go after it so doggedly. Are they all misguided? Can you even put a price on what a good marriage brings? Who makes up the majority of single parents by choice, men or women?

Men overwhelmingly still propose and initiate marriages— I don’t know where you’re getting your idea that women “pursue it doggedly”. Men also get the disproportion benefits of marriage— approximately $200,000 in free services as discussed, and they also live longer if they’re married. Women, by contrast, have a decreased life expectancy if they marry.

From the abundance of relationship advice along the lines of "how to make him propose", none of it directed at men.

I don't agree with your calculation simply because there is no need for an average man to use a surrogate since cheaper options are freely available. Besides, women decide how many children a couple will have, not men. It seems to me women are voluntarily going into the process that you claim is a bad deal for them.

I didn’t claim all marriage is a bad deal for women. I said average marriage is.

A guy needs to bring $400,000 (conservatively) in after-tax assets into the marriage over and above what his wife brings in for things to begin level. Then he needs to actually be willing to be an equal partner and parent. Then he needs to be someone a woman wants to spend time with and finds attractive.

That marriage (which describes my own) is not a bad deal. That is the only kind of marriage women should settle for, and the studies of who gets married suggest I’m not the only one who thinks so.

[Anonymous]

Telling women to wait until they’re 37 to TTC is evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless the husband is rich.

Women do most of the unpaid and unnoticed domestic labor in the home. They use their body to create babies and then do most of the childcare.

If the husband isn’t rich, what does he bring to the table?

Another post from The Coven of Bitter Divorcees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And who are these men, exactly? If you took everyone I know from elementary school to a graduate degree and/or have worked with, maybe 4 or 5% hit it big. Meaning million dollar salaries or WSJ stories, etc. The rest have had mediocre to good careers.

So let me guess, that 4 or 5% magically married DCUM posters who are in shape and run around in yoga pants?

Are you asking about men who make over half a million with SAHM? Hedge fund managers, real estate developers, tech sales, partners at law firms, built and sold own businesses etc. but these men are fine with SAHM wives their marriages last until men cheat , on average

The worst are these 200k guys with wives who also make 200k. This is when the woman is exhausted to the brink of insanity as they tend to be cheap and controlling with resources on home aide and the wives are that cheaper “second shift”

I’m a $230K woman and although a second income would be nice I wouldn’t marry anyone who made less than me. I have made a ton of career mistakes so I figure any competent guy should be out earning me by now.

Exhibit A

Sorry this bothers you. But I’m highly educated, worked hard and sacrificed a lot to get to this income. And most of my female friends make more. So I figure any intelligent hard working guy from similar background could have done the same. If he didn’t something is wrong and we are not compatible.

That is like the top 1% of US salaries. What on earth do these people do? Everybody can't be a lawyer or hedge fund manager.

Why should she not require the top 1% if she grew up in these circles?

I am a recent immigrant who moved here as a teenager. All my peers from back home ( all from UMC homes) who moved here before 25 make 200k with the exception of PhD holders in academia and myself ( I stayed home for almost a decade).

Lawyers, doctors, engineers, public accountants, some pharmacists, some specialist nurses 15-20 years into their careers usually make 200k.

PP is talking generalities, and she will know when to make exceptions to her rule. But at 43, if you come from an UMC background, your only excuse for not making 200k should be that it's not that important to you.

If it's important to PP, why should she not require it from a partner?

Some of you think women should get married to any Tom or Dick who shows up. It's better to be single than married to someone who does not share your worldview.

This is such a pervasive problem. Women should have exceptionally high standards but having any at all really triggers some DCUM posters.

A man married to an average woman gets— at least— $500,000 equivalent services of a surrogate and egg donor if they have two children.

A woman married to an average man gets less than nothing, because he is a net drain on her resources. Donor sperm is not especially costly.

If you’re not getting a top 10-15% man, you’re getting a bad deal.

bad math

How much do you think surrogacy and egg donation costs?

The math was off but not too far off. Surrogacy cost $150k; egg donation could be free but with select designer egg up $40k. The issue is not that but the wife also provides free labor for the totality of raising the children! It is a net drain on her time, more so than for men as they tend to underdeliver with household duties. There was in fact an economic research that women put in these duties over $100k/year in lost pension savings, career opportunities and free labor

The real issue is that women magically fail to count their half.

The child is half hers. The pregnancy is half hers. Raising children is half on her. Why are you using a cost basis of services provided to the third party? Does your chef eat with you? Does your housekeeper live in your house? Does your nanny have rights on the child? No. They deliver the service and leave. They don't consume half of it. They don't own half of it. And they certainly don't bother you with their opinions on how it ought to be done.

Ok, assume $300,000 plus designers eggs another $80,000, divide by two (since you’re on about it only being half his) and you’re still starting marriage with a dude who needs to bring an additional $200,000 (after taxes) into the marriage before you even hit zero. Most don’t.

Designer eggs? Are you really bringing designer-quality eggs to the table? If a standard 37-year old DCUM professional woman was a donor in a catalogue, no one would pick her. They don't pick them for the salary. I mean why not include a private jet and silk sheets while you're at it? Everyone totally gets that.

I sure was. Ivy League and healthy is what most people want in donor eggs.

But it’s still irrelevant. The question is whether marriage is a good deal for women. Most men aren’t coming to the table these days with $200,000 ($400,000 when you consider only half is hers) in after tax assets to contribute to start at level.

They start with youth, I think.

Nevertheless, your calculation is utterly at odds with reality. It is mostly women who initiate the marriage and children discussion, not men. Marriage must be pretty valuable to women to go after it so doggedly. Are they all misguided? Can you even put a price on what a good marriage brings? Who makes up the majority of single parents by choice, men or women?

Men overwhelmingly still propose and initiate marriages— I don’t know where you’re getting your idea that women “pursue it doggedly”. Men also get the disproportion benefits of marriage— approximately $200,000 in free services as discussed, and they also live longer if they’re married. Women, by contrast, have a decreased life expectancy if they marry.

Oh FFS men propose because women bully them into it with ultimatums.

lol at your made up statistics about “free services”.

Married men live longer = correlation not causation

[Anonymous]

Women do most of the unpaid and unnoticed domestic labor in the home.

Women do the things only they think are necessary and only they care about… as they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And who are these men, exactly? If you took everyone I know from elementary school to a graduate degree and/or have worked with, maybe 4 or 5% hit it big. Meaning million dollar salaries or WSJ stories, etc. The rest have had mediocre to good careers.

So let me guess, that 4 or 5% magically married DCUM posters who are in shape and run around in yoga pants?

Are you asking about men who make over half a million with SAHM? Hedge fund managers, real estate developers, tech sales, partners at law firms, built and sold own businesses etc. but these men are fine with SAHM wives their marriages last until men cheat , on average

The worst are these 200k guys with wives who also make 200k. This is when the woman is exhausted to the brink of insanity as they tend to be cheap and controlling with resources on home aide and the wives are that cheaper “second shift”

I’m a $230K woman and although a second income would be nice I wouldn’t marry anyone who made less than me. I have made a ton of career mistakes so I figure any competent guy should be out earning me by now.

Exhibit A

Sorry this bothers you. But I’m highly educated, worked hard and sacrificed a lot to get to this income. And most of my female friends make more. So I figure any intelligent hard working guy from similar background could have done the same. If he didn’t something is wrong and we are not compatible.

That is like the top 1% of US salaries. What on earth do these people do? Everybody can't be a lawyer or hedge fund manager.

Why should she not require the top 1% if she grew up in these circles?

I am a recent immigrant who moved here as a teenager. All my peers from back home ( all from UMC homes) who moved here before 25 make 200k with the exception of PhD holders in academia and myself ( I stayed home for almost a decade).

Lawyers, doctors, engineers, public accountants, some pharmacists, some specialist nurses 15-20 years into their careers usually make 200k.

PP is talking generalities, and she will know when to make exceptions to her rule. But at 43, if you come from an UMC background, your only excuse for not making 200k should be that it's not that important to you.

If it's important to PP, why should she not require it from a partner?

Some of you think women should get married to any Tom or Dick who shows up. It's better to be single than married to someone who does not share your worldview.

This is such a pervasive problem. Women should have exceptionally high standards but having any at all really triggers some DCUM posters.

A man married to an average woman gets— at least— $500,000 equivalent services of a surrogate and egg donor if they have two children.

A woman married to an average man gets less than nothing, because he is a net drain on her resources. Donor sperm is not especially costly.

If you’re not getting a top 10-15% man, you’re getting a bad deal.

bad math

How much do you think surrogacy and egg donation costs?

The math was off but not too far off. Surrogacy cost $150k; egg donation could be free but with select designer egg up $40k. The issue is not that but the wife also provides free labor for the totality of raising the children! It is a net drain on her time, more so than for men as they tend to underdeliver with household duties. There was in fact an economic research that women put in these duties over $100k/year in lost pension savings, career opportunities and free labor

The real issue is that women magically fail to count their half.

The child is half hers. The pregnancy is half hers. Raising children is half on her. Why are you using a cost basis of services provided to the third party? Does your chef eat with you? Does your housekeeper live in your house? Does your nanny have rights on the child? No. They deliver the service and leave. They don't consume half of it. They don't own half of it. And they certainly don't bother you with their opinions on how it ought to be done.

Ok, assume $300,000 plus designers eggs another $80,000, divide by two (since you’re on about it only being half his) and you’re still starting marriage with a dude who needs to bring an additional $200,000 (after taxes) into the marriage before you even hit zero. Most don’t.

Designer eggs? Are you really bringing designer-quality eggs to the table? If a standard 37-year old DCUM professional woman was a donor in a catalogue, no one would pick her. They don't pick them for the salary. I mean why not include a private jet and silk sheets while you're at it? Everyone totally gets that.

I sure was. Ivy League and healthy is what most people want in donor eggs.

But it’s still irrelevant. The question is whether marriage is a good deal for women. Most men aren’t coming to the table these days with $200,000 ($400,000 when you consider only half is hers) in after tax assets to contribute to start at level.

LOL, no one wants your dried up 37 year old eggs, Cornell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the husband is rich.

Women do most of the unpaid and unnoticed domestic labor in the home. They use their body to create babies and then do most of the childcare.

If the husband isn’t rich, what does he bring to the table?

Another post from The Coven of Bitter Divorcees.

+1
There's a reason why guys never date American women when there are other options available. So frumpy and horrible attitudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do agree with that. As a woman who makes around 300K I work many more hours than men in the same position (they make half a million). I also was routinely passed on promotions, given more admin tasks at work, which resulted in me taking more time/efforts to climb up. If you add the child birth and household duties on top of that (men are traditionally are not great at that, so working women still pull off most on the home front), this results in a huge tax on woman's body, time and own financial stability.

I went through this in my marriage (my ex was well paid, we were roughly equal but he didn't pull off the home duties), and I do not want to remarry unless a candidate can offer a really great lifestyle, which would take many daily tasks off my table. For example, if I could work less hours when I am with my partner, if he is indeed an equal contributor at home, with kids etc. Men should bring more to the table financially if they are not pulling it off at home.

I think I will be partnered but won't remarry after my divorce as it's objectively hard to find such a husband. I've met many guys who are working low stress jobs, live in messy places, travel cheaply, play music after 6pm devoting time to their hobbies and interests, and they don't plan to change their lifestyle for a woman. Being with someone like that would result in me working again like a horse while he rests aside

Why? You are already making plenty to have a comfortable life. Is money your only motivator? That low stress life sounds downright appealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the husband is rich.

Women do most of the unpaid and unnoticed domestic labor in the home. They use their body to create babies and then do most of the childcare.

If the husband isn’t rich, what does he bring to the table?

Another post from The Coven of Bitter Divorcees.

+1
There's a reason why guys never date American women when there are other options available. So frumpy and horrible attitudes.

Yes, this. BTDT and most women I meet act as though they are gods gift to man, and they are seriously lacking on so many levels. I can get past the snobbiness and pretentious behavior of most to make it to a second or even third date, but if that attitude is still present I (and those I know) move on. Just not worth the trouble for me and I do not want to bring anyone like that into my larger family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do agree with that. As a woman who makes around 300K I work many more hours than men in the same position (they make half a million). I also was routinely passed on promotions, given more admin tasks at work, which resulted in me taking more time/efforts to climb up. If you add the child birth and household duties on top of that (men are traditionally are not great at that, so working women still pull off most on the home front), this results in a huge tax on woman's body, time and own financial stability.

I went through this in my marriage (my ex was well paid, we were roughly equal but he didn't pull off the home duties), and I do not want to remarry unless a candidate can offer a really great lifestyle, which would take many daily tasks off my table. For example, if I could work less hours when I am with my partner, if he is indeed an equal contributor at home, with kids etc. Men should bring more to the table financially if they are not pulling it off at home.

I think I will be partnered but won't remarry after my divorce as it's objectively hard to find such a husband. I've met many guys who are working low stress jobs, live in messy places, travel cheaply, play music after 6pm devoting time to their hobbies and interests, and they don't plan to change their lifestyle for a woman. Being with someone like that would result in me working again like a horse while he rests aside

Why? You are already making plenty to have a comfortable life. Is money your only motivator? That low stress life sounds downright appealing.

Who told you my life is stress free? I work plenty. And having a partner who would be controlling of joint money while not contributing at oar would add stress. Having a partner who is fine playing guitar while the sink is full of dirty dishes and house is messy would add stress, too! I hate irresponsible disorderly people and more men are like that. I want to be with a similarly organized and driven person. There has to be a match for longer term relationship

[Anonymous]

Most alpha males prefer traditional family styles where the wife is either sah or at the very least not knee deep in career. It's part frail ego because they don't want competition and mostly because the trophy wife is a real thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do agree with that. As a woman who makes around 300K I work many more hours than men in the same position (they make half a million). I also was routinely passed on promotions, given more admin tasks at work, which resulted in me taking more time/efforts to climb up. If you add the child birth and household duties on top of that (men are traditionally are not great at that, so working women still pull off most on the home front), this results in a huge tax on woman's body, time and own financial stability.

I went through this in my marriage (my ex was well paid, we were roughly equal but he didn't pull off the home duties), and I do not want to remarry unless a candidate can offer a really great lifestyle, which would take many daily tasks off my table. For example, if I could work less hours when I am with my partner, if he is indeed an equal contributor at home, with kids etc. Men should bring more to the table financially if they are not pulling it off at home.

I think I will be partnered but won't remarry after my divorce as it's objectively hard to find such a husband. I've met many guys who are working low stress jobs, live in messy places, travel cheaply, play music after 6pm devoting time to their hobbies and interests, and they don't plan to change their lifestyle for a woman. Being with someone like that would result in me working again like a horse while he rests aside

Why? You are already making plenty to have a comfortable life. Is money your only motivator? That low stress life sounds downright appealing.

Who told you my life is stress free? I work plenty. And having a partner who would be controlling of joint money while not contributing at oar would add stress. Having a partner who is fine playing guitar while the sink is full of dirty dishes and house is messy would add stress, too! I hate irresponsible disorderly people and more men are like that. I want to be with a similarly organized and driven person. There has to be a match for longer term relationship

You would not enjoy being married to a similarly driven person becaus then you would have to compromise on decision making and autonomy.

[Anonymous]

An old lady once told me.

First marriage love. Second marriage money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An old lady once told me.

First marriage love. Second marriage money.

It should be the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a single mother who isn’t poor is the best.

Say more? Considering this for myself. I'd have less money but my job pays fine.

I wouldn’t do this unless you can really afford a lot of help, or live near relatives that would be willing to help.

What? The dad will likely get 50% custody. I am not poor or have help or relatives. Unnecessary with shared custody.