American Women Are Giving Up on Marriage (Wall Street Journal)

[Anonymous]

Another topical WSJ Article today about Asian countries having to pay people to get married...and it still isn't working.

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/relationships/singles-dating-marriage-fertility-birthrate-south-korea-bdb40c7b

Saha-gu, a district in South Korea’s second largest city of Busan, offers singles who match at its events around $340 to spend on dates. Those who get married receive roughly $14,000 upfront and are feted with housing subsidies and more cash to cover pregnancy-related expenses and international travel. No participant has claimed the prize for marriage.

Churches and companies are lending a hand. Booyoung Group, a construction firm in Seoul, pays its employees roughly $75,000 each time they have a baby. Yoido Full Gospel Church, one of the world’s largest congregations in the world, gives its members $1,380 for each childbirth.

But marriage is a tough sell for many South Korean singles.

A recent survey shows roughly three-fifths of working South Koreans think it’s OK not to marry. Many say they don’t feel the need, and rising living costs are big disincentives, as are the punishingly long work hours in South Korea’s office culture. Women face additional barriers in re-entering the workforce after childbirth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage for a highly paid woman is like signing up for a servitude contract without any guarantees of payback. She enters it while still young and desirable for her fertility. When she's over 40, husband can just dump her and divide everything. Men are only valuing women for their looks, fertility and sexuality. Why enter a union where you are only needed for the qualities that last just as much, only to get disposed with HUGE collateral damage to you and your children in 10-20 years?

Marriage is only attractive to women without a good earning capacity.

Good point. Unless one strives to be a tradwife (fine if you want that), it’s not a good deal for women. Why cook for 2 when you could for 1? Why clean for 2 when it’s likely cleaner without a man and easier to clean? Many women can get easy casual sex if they want, but many would rather grab the rabbit. Unless you literally cannot provide for yourself (tradwife), it’s easier to go at it alone.

If you want a transactional tit for tat set up then marriage is clearly not for you. If you love and enjoy each other then you don't mind doing things for each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage, by definition, is a bad deal for an educated, independent women. I'm in my 40s and happily married, but if I were to be single again, I wouldn't date simply because 99.9% of the men are inferior to me. I have a girl in my team who is in her late 20s, beautiful, educated, makes in the mid 200k, and owns her own place. She tells me that most of the guys her age are broke and fat.

Same can be said for women. I’m a guy who made in the mid 300’s by age 30 and nearly every single 20 something chick on the apps is below 100k. The difference is most of us guys don’t really care if a woman makes less.

That’s because you know she will provide you with many $1000000s in unpaid domestic labor.

LOL. I always love these valuations of "unpaid labor". The numbers keep going up and up and up. Pretty soon only Elon Musk will be able to afford this "unpaid labor".

Exactly: childcare, cost of time off from work is incredibly high in the US. Women get into permanent career stalemate with chidlbirth. Thus only Elon will be soon able to continue to reproduce

Parenting is also unpaid labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, costs of all services from childcare to cooked meals and tuition to house cleaning and what not have gone up so have value of a SAHP.

I've seen a study somewhere that on average a married woman gives up about $2mm in own retirement savings due to career stalemate. E.g. much, much more than ANY child support or alimony would cover.

That's several times more the average man has saved for retirement, so you should be very suspect of whatever study you saw. That makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Some of you are really jaded. You act like no women has ever been happily married to a non-jerk before. That's really sad.

I'm not saying everyone wants a husband and children, but my husband and children enrich my life in so many ways and I would be very lonely and sad without them. Yes it's more "work" too - but I honestly don't know what I would do with all of my free time instead. No hobby takes that much time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another topical WSJ Article today about Asian countries having to pay people to get married...and it still isn't working.

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/relationships/singles-dating-marriage-fertility-birthrate-south-korea-bdb40c7b

Saha-gu, a district in South Korea’s second largest city of Busan, offers singles who match at its events around $340 to spend on dates. Those who get married receive roughly $14,000 upfront and are feted with housing subsidies and more cash to cover pregnancy-related expenses and international travel. No participant has claimed the prize for marriage.

Churches and companies are lending a hand. Booyoung Group, a construction firm in Seoul, pays its employees roughly $75,000 each time they have a baby. Yoido Full Gospel Church, one of the world’s largest congregations in the world, gives its members $1,380 for each childbirth.

But marriage is a tough sell for many South Korean singles.

A recent survey shows roughly three-fifths of working South Koreans think it’s OK not to marry. Many say they don’t feel the need, and rising living costs are big disincentives, as are the punishingly long work hours in South Korea’s office culture. Women face additional barriers in re-entering the workforce after childbirth.

That’s not nearly enough money to raise a kid.

$75k sounds like a lot but that’s less than a lot of people’s salaries. It’ll all be gone within the first year of that child’s life.

You really need a solid $150k a year to raise a child comfortably. Over 18 years that’s $2.7M. Plus an additional $500k for college expenses.

If they tried offering $5M to have kids, people would have more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those women are not settling for men who are not compatible, full partners. Nothing wrong with that. It sounds like if any of them met the right guy, they'd consider marriage.

But, doesn't that mean men are giving up too? The population of the U.S. is 50.5% female. If they aren't getting married, neither are men. Or is something going wrong with a large portion of the male population making them incompatible marriage partners?

Both genders are becoming increasingly unattractive to the other. You have more men growing up to be directionless incel losers, you have more women becoming fat and having delusional standards.

. . . .

Well put and I agree.

Can everyone see how phones and social media are largely behind these trends?

Social media has definitely been implicated in the whole incel mess (although I believe the number of so-called incels has been blown way out of proportion; there aren’t many of them).

80 to 90% of all dating women focusing on the top 10% of men is the result of dating apps, which instantly allow women to reject any man under 6 feet tall who makes under six-figures ($100,000 per year). The profiles of all those other men are never even seen.

Add to that the well-intentioned movement toward “fat acceptance.” While well-intentioned, it’s used as an excuse for both genders to be unhealthy and unfit, which is exactly the opposite of what FLOTUS Michelle Obama was trying to help us avoid: unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage for a highly paid woman is like signing up for a servitude contract without any guarantees of payback. She enters it while still young and desirable for her fertility. When she's over 40, husband can just dump her and divide everything. Men are only valuing women for their looks, fertility and sexuality. Why enter a union where you are only needed for the qualities that last just as much, only to get disposed with HUGE collateral damage to you and your children in 10-20 years?

Marriage is only attractive to women without a good earning capacity.

Good point. Unless one strives to be a tradwife (fine if you want that), it’s not a good deal for women. Why cook for 2 when you could for 1? Why clean for 2 when it’s likely cleaner without a man and easier to clean? Many women can get easy casual sex if they want, but many would rather grab the rabbit. Unless you literally cannot provide for yourself (tradwife), it’s easier to go at it alone.

If you want a transactional tit for tat set up then marriage is clearly not for you. If you love and enjoy each other then you don't mind doing things for each other.

Give it up. women don’t want to be unpaid labor for men any more, which is a big big reason for the fertility decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting because my understanding is that the sociological data shows that married parents have high levels of happiness. Having a stable family is an overall benefit to the individuals involved and society.

Certain demographic groups are more successful in forming and maintaining families including the college educated professional class, Asian Americans, and more religious people.

We talk about this issue with our teen. Alongside college and career prep, we want him to know the importance of family and the value of intentionally prioritizing a good marriage. It doesn’t just magically happen. Effort is both required and rewarded.

I’m familiar with those two groups and the ‘success’ has more to do with female spouses allowing the male partner to have as much latitude and freedom to pursue affairs or alternative relationships. Basically, men do what they want married or not, while the women look the other way. Western women have different expectations. So, you’re speaking about things you have little knowledge of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage, by definition, is a bad deal for an educated, independent women. I'm in my 40s and happily married, but if I were to be single again, I wouldn't date simply because 99.9% of the men are inferior to me. I have a girl in my team who is in her late 20s, beautiful, educated, makes in the mid 200k, and owns her own place. She tells me that most of the guys her age are broke and fat.

Same can be said for women. I’m a guy who made in the mid 300’s by age 30 and nearly every single 20 something chick on the apps is below 100k. The difference is most of us guys don’t really care if a woman makes less.

That’s because you know she will provide you with many $1000000s in unpaid domestic labor.

LOL. I always love these valuations of "unpaid labor". The numbers keep going up and up and up. Pretty soon only Elon Musk will be able to afford this "unpaid labor".

Exactly: childcare, cost of time off from work is incredibly high in the US. Women get into permanent career stalemate with chidlbirth. Thus only Elon will be soon able to continue to reproduce

Parenting is also unpaid labor.

So true. People I raised are benefiting society as individuals, doing meaningful work and supporting economy. I'm not getting any direct benefits from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those women are not settling for men who are not compatible, full partners. Nothing wrong with that. It sounds like if any of them met the right guy, they'd consider marriage.

But, doesn't that mean men are giving up too? The population of the U.S. is 50.5% female. If they aren't getting married, neither are men. Or is something going wrong with a large portion of the male population making them incompatible marriage partners?

Both genders are becoming increasingly unattractive to the other. You have more men growing up to be directionless incel losers, you have more women becoming fat and having delusional standards.

. . . .

Well put and I agree.

Can everyone see how phones and social media are largely behind these trends?

Social media has definitely been implicated in the whole incel mess (although I believe the number of so-called incels has been blown way out of proportion; there aren’t many of them).

80 to 90% of all dating women focusing on the top 10% of men is the result of dating apps, which instantly allow women to reject any man under 6 feet tall who makes under six-figures ($100,000 per year). The profiles of all those other men are never even seen.

Add to that the well-intentioned movement toward “fat acceptance.” While well-intentioned, it’s used as an excuse for both genders to be unhealthy and unfit, which is exactly the opposite of what FLOTUS Michelle Obama was trying to help us avoid: unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles.

You are right, social media is a major driver here. It's funneling men into incel discourse where they become angry losers and TikTok is rife with content telling young women that they can get a tall and rich guy who will want them to stay at home. The numbers bear this out: 20 percent of men on dating apps get like 90 percent of the attention from women. People don't like hearing that they need to compromise; men don't want to settle with working class jobs and feel resentful and the "globalist laptop" elites making 200k and women don't want to settle for anything less than tall and white collar job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are really jaded. You act like no women has ever been happily married to a non-jerk before. That's really sad.

That's the reason. Happily married people aren't as vocal as bitterly divorced or eternally single ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting because my understanding is that the sociological data shows that married parents have high levels of happiness. Having a stable family is an overall benefit to the individuals involved and society.

Certain demographic groups are more successful in forming and maintaining families including the college educated professional class, Asian Americans, and more religious people.

We talk about this issue with our teen. Alongside college and career prep, we want him to know the importance of family and the value of intentionally prioritizing a good marriage. It doesn’t just magically happen. Effort is both required and rewarded.

I’m familiar with those two groups and the ‘success’ has more to do with female spouses allowing the male partner to have as much latitude and freedom to pursue affairs or alternative relationships. Basically, men do what they want married or not, while the women look the other way. Western women have different expectations. So, you’re speaking about things you have little knowledge of

Asian woman who isn't looking the other way and still in a good relationship since three decades and so are majority of my lifelong friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage for a highly paid woman is like signing up for a servitude contract without any guarantees of payback. She enters it while still young and desirable for her fertility. When she's over 40, husband can just dump her and divide everything. Men are only valuing women for their looks, fertility and sexuality. Why enter a union where you are only needed for the qualities that last just as much, only to get disposed with HUGE collateral damage to you and your children in 10-20 years?

Marriage is only attractive to women without a good earning capacity.

Good point. Unless one strives to be a tradwife (fine if you want that), it’s not a good deal for women. Why cook for 2 when you could for 1? Why clean for 2 when it’s likely cleaner without a man and easier to clean? Many women can get easy casual sex if they want, but many would rather grab the rabbit. Unless you literally cannot provide for yourself (tradwife), it’s easier to go at it alone.

If you want a transactional tit for tat set up then marriage is clearly not for you. If you love and enjoy each other then you don't mind doing things for each other.

Give it up. women don’t want to be unpaid labor for men any more, which is a big big reason for the fertility decline.

You clearly feel jaded due to lack of good role models.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are really jaded. You act like no women has ever been happily married to a non-jerk before. That's really sad.

I'm not saying everyone wants a husband and children, but my husband and children enrich my life in so many ways and I would be very lonely and sad without them. Yes it's more "work" too - but I honestly don't know what I would do with all of my free time instead. No hobby takes that much time!

This place is an echo chamber of unhappy women. It serves basically the same function as an incel message board in reverse; it highlights the negative experiences of some people and encourages people reading it to identify with those negative experiences. It is, very often, pretty much removed from reality. Look at the conversation on housework and childcare. On average, women in households with children do more of those things than men, it's true. Men do, on average, about 16.5 hours per week of housework and childcare and women do around 31. Men, in turn, do paid work for 38.4 hours per week, to women's 21.6. The result is that men's combination of paid and unpaid work is slightly higher than women's, but overall it's essentially even.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/ which draws on the American Time Used Study

That's not the story you get here though. The story you get here both ignores the fact that men, on average, are doing housework and childcare (a couple hours a day on average) and that they're doing paid work enough more than women to more than offset the extra unpaid labor at home.