NYT: "The Trouble with Men"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

+1 and it seems a lot of men would like to return to a time when “none at all” wasn’t (economically) an option.

It still kind of isn’t an option for most women who want kids. On one hand women have more economic freedom, but this has been negated by insane cost of living. You need to earn a top 2-3% income to comfortably have a kid on your own, and how many women of actual child bearing age are earning 250k+ outside of anecdotal stories of high earning girl bosses on these forums?

The average single woman under 35 can barely afford to sustain herself in a 1BR apartment. Raising kids and paying for child care is out of the question.

I don’t think you know a lot of women, because that is not true. Quite a few of my girlfriends either rent or own their own home and are absolutely fine paying their bills. Maybe you mean under 25, but the average 30 year old woman is doing pretty well financially.

If single and childless, yes.

I know several women who decided to be SMBC. What they all have in common is very supportive families who live nearby. One even has her mom move in with her. Otherwise it doesn't work. In order to make enough money to support a household with kids, you need the kind of job that tends not to be super flexible or accommodate picking kids up from daycare at 5:59 on the dot. Also the kind of job that makes holiday breaks extra hard. So unless you are making really big money and can afford a nanny even once your kid is in school, you need a co-parent of some kind.

Basically, the grandparents perform the role of "wife" in these arrangements. How many people have parents who want to, or are capable, of doing that? PLUS the kind of career that will support them and their kids (and maybe their parents if the move in)? Not many. This choice remains pretty rare as a result. It's actually more cost effective to have a kid with someone you don't want to marry or live with, because then you share childcare costs and responsibilities.

I was raised by a single mom (not by choice). She put herself through school and worked FT. We didn’t have a nanny (daycare) and while my grandparents were alive they were not the supportive type.
Women make it work every single day. 25% of households are single moms, abandoned by their partner/father of their kids. You can’t possibly believe they all have nannies or parents that live with them.

[Anonymous]

From birth to 18, it's the moms still doing the primary childcare/dealing with kids, while working FT.

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1168961388/pew-earnings-gender-wage-gap-housework-chores-child-care



https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/articles/study-found-parents-especially-dads-171831075.html

Parents aren’t talking to their teens about this nearly enough. Only 53 percent of parents of Gen Z high school students talk to their kids about their options “frequently,” and broken down by gender, it’s 60 percent of moms and only 44 percent od dads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

+1

They obviously can't get a decent guy, so they don't really have any good options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

+1

They obviously can't get a decent guy, so they don't really have any good options.

Isn’t doing it on your own better than doing it with a “not decent” guy? Sounds like you agree with smbc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Right right. If you were actually a good dad you wouldn’t be “denied access”. Time to face the music, youre the deadbeat we’re talking about NOT settling for.

Women 100% deny access to good dads just to spite them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

+1 and it seems a lot of men would like to return to a time when “none at all” wasn’t (economically) an option.

It still kind of isn’t an option for most women who want kids. On one hand women have more economic freedom, but this has been negated by insane cost of living. You need to earn a top 2-3% income to comfortably have a kid on your own, and how many women of actual child bearing age are earning 250k+ outside of anecdotal stories of high earning girl bosses on these forums?

The average single woman under 35 can barely afford to sustain herself in a 1BR apartment. Raising kids and paying for child care is out of the question.

Right. Which is why the vast majority of single moms who don't have top tier level of financial resources try their best to man-hop and use sex and emotional manipulation to get a de facto step daddy or series of step daddies to pay the bills, even if they don't necessarily enter into formal martial relationships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

And men who can’t get the type of American woman they want will become a passport bro and find a wife from another country.

+1. And everyone is happy. Not sure why some people keep insisting that people have to settle. Nothing wrong with being single, and plenty of women are happy single.

It means they settled for being single. That's their compromise. That doesn't mean they are happy being single. Their settling was with the insistence that they are worthy of an imaginary prince charming rather than a real live person. Mentally unwell people prefer delusions to reality as it gives them a perception of control.

We all have to settle in most aspects of our lives because having everything is not possible. If you want a monogamous long term relationship, you have to actually commit at some point to a single real life other person and try to make it work.

You can't have that and also have some other person as your committed monogamous partner You can't paste together good characteristics of multiple different real people into an imaginary person who doesn't exist.

Everyone has to "settle" for either accepting reality or living in delusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

+1 and it seems a lot of men would like to return to a time when “none at all” wasn’t (economically) an option.

It still kind of isn’t an option for most women who want kids. On one hand women have more economic freedom, but this has been negated by insane cost of living. You need to earn a top 2-3% income to comfortably have a kid on your own, and how many women of actual child bearing age are earning 250k+ outside of anecdotal stories of high earning girl bosses on these forums?

The average single woman under 35 can barely afford to sustain herself in a 1BR apartment. Raising kids and paying for child care is out of the question.

Right. Which is why the vast majority of single moms who don't have top tier level of financial resources try their best to man-hop and use sex and emotional manipulation to get a de facto step daddy or series of step daddies to pay the bills, even if they don't necessarily enter into formal martial relationships.

Interesting misogynistic fanfiction. A few notes: martial relationships are generally not the goal of a healthy co-parenting relationship. Accusing women of emotional manipulation or using sex doesn’t suggest you have respect for women as people or as parents— a great reason they should avoid getting themselves, or their future kids, involved with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

And men who can’t get the type of American woman they want will become a passport bro and find a wife from another country.

+1. And everyone is happy. Not sure why some people keep insisting that people have to settle. Nothing wrong with being single, and plenty of women are happy single.

It means they settled for being single. That's their compromise. That doesn't mean they are happy being single. Their settling was with the insistence that they are worthy of an imaginary prince charming rather than a real live person. Mentally unwell people prefer delusions to reality as it gives them a perception of control.

We all have to settle in most aspects of our lives because having everything is not possible. If you want a monogamous long term relationship, you have to actually commit at some point to a single real life other person and try to make it work.

You can't have that and also have some other person as your committed monogamous partner You can't paste together good characteristics of multiple different real people into an imaginary person who doesn't exist.

Everyone has to "settle" for either accepting reality or living in delusion.

Single women are statistically the happiest. Studies of single women with children don’t disaggregate for those who are single by choice. So settling for being the happiest subgroup of adults? Sounds good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many hours women spend while at their job arranging doctors appointments, filling out school paperwork, ordering groceries, online shopping for birthday presents, family travel planning, etc. I know I am in charge of a hell of a lot more than my DH. I'm lucky if he remembers how old they are.

Probably 3-4x longer than if they could do these things efficiently. Oh by the way you're not supposed to be doing this kind of thing at work anyway. Not beyond a minimal amount. It really shows an inability to prioritize. Birthday presents are not important.

Is this super dad posting? You clearly aren’t doing everything as well as you saying you don’t think birthday presents for your children are important.

Not sure if I’m super dad. But I posted before about doing lots for my kids. I did not post the above. And yes of course I get my kids birthday and Christmas presents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems to be a thematic series at the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/magazine/men-heterofatalism-dating-relationships.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YU8.43pQ.EZ4bi1dHDtR_&smid=url-share

Men are just unable to operate in normal, grown up relationships - or at least that's what the these articles would have us believe.

Honestly, I think this is turning into a pretty tired trope. (guy here)

It's part of the Depopulation Agenda, to slow birth rates of certain demographics for various political reasons.

[Anonymous]

Very entertaining to hear a bunch of frumpy, post menopausal women rationalize why they can't get a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

And men who can’t get the type of American woman they want will become a passport bro and find a wife from another country.

+1. And everyone is happy. Not sure why some people keep insisting that people have to settle. Nothing wrong with being single, and plenty of women are happy single.

It means they settled for being single. That's their compromise. That doesn't mean they are happy being single. Their settling was with the insistence that they are worthy of an imaginary prince charming rather than a real live person. Mentally unwell people prefer delusions to reality as it gives them a perception of control.

We all have to settle in most aspects of our lives because having everything is not possible. If you want a monogamous long term relationship, you have to actually commit at some point to a single real life other person and try to make it work.

You can't have that and also have some other person as your committed monogamous partner You can't paste together good characteristics of multiple different real people into an imaginary person who doesn't exist.

Everyone has to "settle" for either accepting reality or living in delusion.

It means that these women are happier single with one child than being partnered. Yes they didn’t find a man within their fertility window who would make them happier than being single. It’s not their fault or a flaw. Some people find the one later in life; others never. And that’s ok.

Women actually had and grew children on their own since humanity existed. Men often died in wars, out of wedlock births rates were higher than now due to lack of birth control etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

And men who can’t get the type of American woman they want will become a passport bro and find a wife from another country.

+1. And everyone is happy. Not sure why some people keep insisting that people have to settle. Nothing wrong with being single, and plenty of women are happy single.

It means they settled for being single. That's their compromise. That doesn't mean they are happy being single. Their settling was with the insistence that they are worthy of an imaginary prince charming rather than a real live person. Mentally unwell people prefer delusions to reality as it gives them a perception of control.

We all have to settle in most aspects of our lives because having everything is not possible. If you want a monogamous long term relationship, you have to actually commit at some point to a single real life other person and try to make it work.

You can't have that and also have some other person as your committed monogamous partner You can't paste together good characteristics of multiple different real people into an imaginary person who doesn't exist.

Everyone has to "settle" for either accepting reality or living in delusion.

It means that these women are happier single with one child than being partnered. Yes they didn’t find a man within their fertility window who would make them happier than being single. It’s not their fault or a flaw. Some people find the one later in life; others never. And that’s ok.

Women actually had and grew children on their own since humanity existed. Men often died in wars, out of wedlock births rates were higher than now due to lack of birth control etc.

Jenny Garp is not such a great role model for women though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Yep.

And the author of the NYT piece also published a much cooed-over 2022 piece in Paris Review in which she talked about how her husband asked for an open marriage (when she was 6 mos post-partum, because the poor dear wasn't getting enough sex!) but it was all fine, because in the end she felt it enhanced the marriage and offered more erotic spice.

Which obviously worked out really well.... since this new piece, three years later, is about her dating life post-divorce.

But honestly lady: if you find it maddening to be with wishy washy eternal child men who can't commit.... why the F are you dating men who self-identify as non-monogamous??