NYT: "The Trouble with Men"

[Anonymous]

These women want weak men they can dominate. Unfortunately women can never really be happy in a relationship with a passive man because it means the woman has to be responsible for everything.

As always, over privileged over educated white feminist elite liberals are spoiled children who are never satisfied yet blame everyone but themselves for the outcomes of their own choices.

So it is ALWAYS the mans fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am 63 and got that reference…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we need to do a better job of preparing our sons (and daughters!) for eventual marriage.

Navigating relationships is a critical life skill.

Agree

But also that current levels of social media and screen time outside of work further erode this.

[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.

How many?

All of them who got practical majors in good undergrad programs and went straight to FT corp job tracks. Or went to grad schools in strong programs and practical disclosing/ engineering, MBA, med school, law school.

Do those women have the same functional men supply / demand issues as the middle class regional college grad women?

And then there’s 60% of every country that ever goes to college. What’s the dating supply / demand situation there? The fertility rate is high.

[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.

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.

Way more than that. Look at the actual stats and data. Talk to your sociologist and social worker friends.

Babies out of wedlock? >>25% of births

Children age 0-18 with no father figure ever? >>25% of minors

[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.

Which is why the birth rate is falling. If women can't find men they want to have kids with, and can't afford to have them on their own, many will just choose not to have kids.

I'm married and have a kid, but stopped at one for several reasons including discovering how unequal my marriage felt after having kids and not wanting to increase that inequity with more children.

Amen, good call and good luck.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yeah! Between that and stopping all incarcerations the last 15 years the Baby Daddy’s are bound to do some high quality, time intensive parenting and spousing. Yeah!

Oh wait. You said “access to their kids.” So it’s all about him again. He wants on demand “access to his kids.” Which as we all know has nothing to do with caring for the kids or parenting the kids. Jsut an ego check the box thing, and the sitter, or his mom, or the new side piece can handle the pizza and screen time.

Access to the kids.

Somehow in someone’s pea brain that equates to being a real dad and needing a divorce court to finally force parenting time. Now only if actual parenting happened then….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you kidding me? If they were “good dads” there’d be way fewer gray divorces. The women would divorce when the kids were younger (due to “bad husband” issues), or not at all. Because they know their kids wouldn’t take it on the chin during co-parenting time.

[Anonymous]

Back to the lack of viable dating options…..

Social media
Gaming
Lack of functional adult male role models
K-12 and college system
Lackadaisical parenting
Entitled spoiled kids of all income strata w no goals.
Lack of community
Lack of religion or universal values
Multiculturalism
Lack of goals and values period
Lack of skills

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wtf. Almost every state is 50/50 custody even if you are an abuser to anyone but the kid.

It’s sad that the only way to get some males with kids to parent is via the court system. Guess their (first) family and marriage weren’t worth growing up for.

[Anonymous]

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

I thought the article and the issue was child bearing age males and females not coupling up and dating?

Seems to be a quality problem and supply/demand imbalance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These women want weak men they can dominate. Unfortunately women can never really be happy in a relationship with a passive man because it means the woman has to be responsible for everything.

As always, over privileged over educated white feminist elite liberals are spoiled children who are never satisfied yet blame everyone but themselves for the outcomes of their own choices.

So it is ALWAYS the mans fault.

So passive men are indecisive and reactive, waiting for a Mommy figure to make all the decisions? Yuck. No gracias.

[Anonymous]

Article is about some old swinger divorcee lady. NYTimes garbage

[Anonymous]

This thread is clickbait

[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.

Which is why the birth rate is falling. If women can't find men they want to have kids with, and can't afford to have them on their own, many will just choose not to have kids.

I'm married and have a kid, but stopped at one for several reasons including discovering how unequal my marriage felt after having kids and not wanting to increase that inequity with more children.

Amen, good call and good luck.

Actually it's natural selection at work. Women who don't relish taking on the traditional mom role are reproducing at far.less.than the replacement rate. They are reproductively unsuccessful at the evolutionary level. They are selecting themselves out of the gene pool.

As are the kinds of men who marry these kinds of women.