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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suicide rate among married women in 1950 was 22.1 per 100k.​ Today it's 6.9 per 100k.

After the passage of no-fault divorce in 70s/80s, suicide​ rates dropped 20%, there was a 10% decline in women murdered by​ their partners, & rates of other kinds of domestic violence​ against women dropped 30%.

That 22.1 number is completely implausible. The rate for married women between 1959-1961 was 6.2 (5.5 if you adjust for age). If it was 22.1 in 1950 then that drop all occurred before no fault divorce, but it was never 22.1. That was close to the rate for married men in 1959, but not women.

Source: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12870 page 32.

This gets passed around in memes but it isn't true.

NP. PP's claim is that suicide and murder rates dropped for married women after no fault divorce. Are you denying that? Quibbling about the actual starting number does not change that there was a drop.

I haven't studied that carefully. I know there are claims to that effect, but I don't have access to the studies where the arguments are made. For this conversation, I'm happy to accept that as true.

My main concern is that you shouldn't pass around made up facts even in the service of arguing something correct. It's also not quibbling. The actual number is a quarter of what was claimed. And anyone making the argument about suicide rates and divorce should care. If you start your argument from a place of untruth, especially so significantly, you don't seem credible. It makes it easier for people to dismiss what might be a correct argument.

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

No, dear. That's what women were doing before feminism.

[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: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.

Do you have sons or daughters?

I have daughters so obviously I am grateful they now have the choice on whether they want to get married or not. I’m grateful they can earn their own money so they aren’t tethered to a bad man. We spend a lot of time talking about the behavior of boys in their class and men that we know, and I teach them how to spot the red flags and what they mean.

Above everything I want them to be happy. If that means marriage, great. If it doesn’t, that’s fine, too. I don’t want either to feel like they HAVE to get married and have kids, like I did.

Now, boy parents are different from what I’ve observed. Their parents ARE worried because they know their sons want a relationship and really needs a mommy figure to take care of their little boy, and nobody wants them. But rather than self-reflect on why they raised their son to be entitled and useless, they want to trap a woman. It’s pretty disgusting.

NP. Every generation of women has been less happy than their mothers since the 70s. The women people keep describing as hostages were, statistically, happier than their grandchildren with the free choice. That obviously doesn't mean that feminism is bad or that we should undo it (which we can't), but it's also something that I don't think people in this conversation are really acknowledging. As someone with a daughter, I'm concerned about that, even as I think feminism has been, on balance a good thing.

You know the old generations of women you're referring to are still alive, right? Clearly, you don't talk to your female relatives (probably because they might say something inconvenient for your false narrative about the good old days). Those of us who talk to our grandmothers, grand aunts, and elderly women in our communities have heard all the horrible stories. Even among those who had decent husbands, not a single one would have married when she did and most would not have married whom they did if they had the choices we do today. There are so many heartbreaking stories of being forced to quit jobs at which they were succeeding, being fired when of "marriageable age," being denied an equal education, being impregnated against their will (rape!), and otherwise being forced into financial dependence and how that shaped their entire lives. Ferk you and your lies. We're showing you the middle fingers our grandmothers wish they could have waved.

The big lie is all that paid work didn't make women happier or less stressed and anxious.

That's because they are still doing the lion's share of the unpaid work. Women thought men would step up at home when women stepped up as wage earners. Instead, women are now expected to be primary parents, maintain the home, AND earn an income.

DP

That’s because ‘women’ are still making stupid choices. Why the F would they marry an idiot who doesn’t want an equal. They have the ability to be more choosy and yet they marry stupid men who don’t step up. It’s time we demand more from men and raise our sons to be better.

I did just this and cannot fathom some of the choices and lives my friends chose. The power balance has shifted, yet women are still making dumb choices as if it didn’t.

Imagine a world in which men lie about their willingness to do their share and then slow roll their selfishness after marriage.

Imagine a world where women see through this and got a man who is actually authentic and raised children who were also authentic. Expect more; get more!

Well, many of us women are not telepathic or trained FBI interrogators like you are. Sad, I know. But that's another reason why more of us are opting out of marriage: When he doesn't have a legal hold on you, you can be done with him the very day he shows his true colors. Good outcomes all around.

The bold is so true. DH proposed but we never married (my decision). I had 2 children. It took me several years to figure out his true colors, and when it was finally clear to me, I told him our relationship was over and asked him to vacate our home by the weekend. (And he did.) If I"d been married, my freedom would have taken years.

I have been sorry literally every day of the last 10 years that I married the SOB I'm currently divorcing. Divorce really open your eyes to what marriage is: a gang initiation that you're not going to be allowed out of without being jumped and bloodied. To have to run up attorneys' fees over everything from custody to finances while this physically and emotionally abusive, lying piece of sh-t uses the courts to further abuse me is intolerable. I was also the higher earner, so the financials didn't even make sense for me. I married because I bought into the stupid idea that kids should be born in wedlock. I have told every woman I know for years that she should not get married unless she is getting a huge financial boost because that is all women get out of marriage. Never ever give a man a legal hold on you unless there's a guaranteed payout that exceeds what you can earn through paid employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suicide rate among married women in 1950 was 22.1 per 100k.​ Today it's 6.9 per 100k.

After the passage of no-fault divorce in 70s/80s, suicide​ rates dropped 20%, there was a 10% decline in women murdered by​ their partners, & rates of other kinds of domestic violence​ against women dropped 30%.

That 22.1 number is completely implausible. The rate for married women between 1959-1961 was 6.2 (5.5 if you adjust for age). If it was 22.1 in 1950 then that drop all occurred before no fault divorce, but it was never 22.1. That was close to the rate for married men in 1959, but not women.

Source: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12870 page 32.

This gets passed around in memes but it isn't true.

NP. PP's claim is that suicide and murder rates dropped for married women after no fault divorce. Are you denying that? Quibbling about the actual starting number does not change that there was a drop.

I haven't studied that carefully. I know there are claims to that effect, but I don't have access to the studies where the arguments are made. For this conversation, I'm happy to accept that as true.

My main concern is that you shouldn't pass around made up facts even in the service of arguing something correct. It's also not quibbling. The actual number is a quarter of what was claimed. And anyone making the argument about suicide rates and divorce should care. If you start your argument from a place of untruth, especially so significantly, you don't seem credible. It makes it easier for people to dismiss what might be a correct argument.

Yeah, I'm sure you're really concerned about PP's credibility, as opposed to being a nitpicking pain in the butt.

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

You need to stop reading tradwife fanfiction by incels and comprehend that being a stay at home mom is extremely hard work -- except it thankless, with zero promotions, zero severance, zero sick days, zero pay, and zero protections from your stupid husband. What is this silly narrative that only paid employment is "working their fingers to the bone"?

Do tell us where all these eligible bachelors will be found in the future! On college campuses? Where?

Are you mentally ill? Where did I mention eligible bachelors?

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

No, dear. That's what women were doing before feminism.

If only happiness statistics bore this out.

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

No, dear. That's what women were doing before feminism.

If only happiness statistics bore this out.

Let's not pretend you care about statistics.

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

You need to stop reading tradwife fanfiction by incels and comprehend that being a stay at home mom is extremely hard work -- except it thankless, with zero promotions, zero severance, zero sick days, zero pay, and zero protections from your stupid husband. What is this silly narrative that only paid employment is "working their fingers to the bone"?

Do tell us where all these eligible bachelors will be found in the future! On college campuses? Where?

Are you mentally ill? Where did I mention eligible bachelors?

Then who will your daughter be marrying and potentially raped by? I've said all along she won't be getting married at all.

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

No, dear. That's what women were doing before feminism.

If only happiness statistics bore this out.

Let's not pretend you care about statistics.

If you produced any that actually backed your statements up that would be great but I know you don't have any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suicide rate among married women in 1950 was 22.1 per 100k.​ Today it's 6.9 per 100k.

After the passage of no-fault divorce in 70s/80s, suicide​ rates dropped 20%, there was a 10% decline in women murdered by​ their partners, & rates of other kinds of domestic violence​ against women dropped 30%.

That 22.1 number is completely implausible. The rate for married women between 1959-1961 was 6.2 (5.5 if you adjust for age). If it was 22.1 in 1950 then that drop all occurred before no fault divorce, but it was never 22.1. That was close to the rate for married men in 1959, but not women.

Source: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12870 page 32.

This gets passed around in memes but it isn't true.

NP. PP's claim is that suicide and murder rates dropped for married women after no fault divorce. Are you denying that? Quibbling about the actual starting number does not change that there was a drop.

I haven't studied that carefully. I know there are claims to that effect, but I don't have access to the studies where the arguments are made. For this conversation, I'm happy to accept that as true.

My main concern is that you shouldn't pass around made up facts even in the service of arguing something correct. It's also not quibbling. The actual number is a quarter of what was claimed. And anyone making the argument about suicide rates and divorce should care. If you start your argument from a place of untruth, especially so significantly, you don't seem credible. It makes it easier for people to dismiss what might be a correct argument.

Yeah, I'm sure you're really concerned about PP's credibility, as opposed to being a nitpicking pain in the butt.

Don't make stuff up and this won't happen. Seriously, just stick to the facts if they make your case. If you don't, you can expect to be called on it.

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

You need to stop reading tradwife fanfiction by incels and comprehend that being a stay at home mom is extremely hard work -- except it thankless, with zero promotions, zero severance, zero sick days, zero pay, and zero protections from your stupid husband. What is this silly narrative that only paid employment is "working their fingers to the bone"?

Do tell us where all these eligible bachelors will be found in the future! On college campuses? Where?

Are you mentally ill? Where did I mention eligible bachelors?

Then who will your daughter be marrying and potentially raped by? I've said all along she won't be getting married at all.

How exactly am I supposed to know what you have said "all along" on an anonymous forum? And how is your bizarre non sequitur even a response to what I wrote about the hardships of being a SAHM?

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

No, dear. That's what women were doing before feminism.

If only happiness statistics bore this out.

They do, incel. They do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suicide rate among married women in 1950 was 22.1 per 100k.​ Today it's 6.9 per 100k.

After the passage of no-fault divorce in 70s/80s, suicide​ rates dropped 20%, there was a 10% decline in women murdered by​ their partners, & rates of other kinds of domestic violence​ against women dropped 30%.

That 22.1 number is completely implausible. The rate for married women between 1959-1961 was 6.2 (5.5 if you adjust for age). If it was 22.1 in 1950 then that drop all occurred before no fault divorce, but it was never 22.1. That was close to the rate for married men in 1959, but not women.

Source: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12870 page 32.

This gets passed around in memes but it isn't true.

NP. PP's claim is that suicide and murder rates dropped for married women after no fault divorce. Are you denying that? Quibbling about the actual starting number does not change that there was a drop.

I haven't studied that carefully. I know there are claims to that effect, but I don't have access to the studies where the arguments are made. For this conversation, I'm happy to accept that as true.

My main concern is that you shouldn't pass around made up facts even in the service of arguing something correct. It's also not quibbling. The actual number is a quarter of what was claimed. And anyone making the argument about suicide rates and divorce should care. If you start your argument from a place of untruth, especially so significantly, you don't seem credible. It makes it easier for people to dismiss what might be a correct argument.

Yeah, I'm sure you're really concerned about PP's credibility, as opposed to being a nitpicking pain in the butt.

Don't make stuff up and this won't happen. Seriously, just stick to the facts if they make your case. If you don't, you can expect to be called on it.

DP. This isn't Snopes. No one cares about your alleged factcheck that missed the point.

[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: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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

You need to stop reading tradwife fanfiction by incels and comprehend that being a stay at home mom is extremely hard work -- except it thankless, with zero promotions, zero severance, zero sick days, zero pay, and zero protections from your stupid husband. What is this silly narrative that only paid employment is "working their fingers to the bone"?

Do tell us where all these eligible bachelors will be found in the future! On college campuses? Where?

Are you mentally ill? Where did I mention eligible bachelors?

Then who will your daughter be marrying and potentially raped by? I've said all along she won't be getting married at all.

I can totally see how you'd be worried for your offspring. Probably true for any son you have.

[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:

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.

Which aspect of feminism are you suggesting it’s in my daughter’s best interest to roll back? The laws that keep her from being raped by her future spouse? The legal right to leave her marriage? The right to have medical treatment without her husband’s permission? Truly what am I supposed to be worrying about for her?

Did the PP ever respond to these questions?

Of course not, because its easier to complain about feminism when you don’t have to deal with facts and can just make vague assertions of doom.

Vague assertions of doom? What planet do you all live on where the future is bright?

Oh good you're still here! Could you tell me which parts of the future will be brighter for my daughter if her husband can rape her at will? If she needs his permission for lifesaving medical care? Or if she can’t have a credit card without his signature?

Your daughter won't get married so it's really irrelevant this fake rape scenario. Our daughters will all be single, working their fingers to the bone in a purposeless life, wondering what the point of life is.

You need to stop reading tradwife fanfiction by incels and comprehend that being a stay at home mom is extremely hard work -- except it thankless, with zero promotions, zero severance, zero sick days, zero pay, and zero protections from your stupid husband. What is this silly narrative that only paid employment is "working their fingers to the bone"?

Do tell us where all these eligible bachelors will be found in the future! On college campuses? Where?

Are you mentally ill? Where did I mention eligible bachelors?

Then who will your daughter be marrying and potentially raped by? I've said all along she won't be getting married at all.

How exactly am I supposed to know what you have said "all along" on an anonymous forum? And how is your bizarre non sequitur even a response to what I wrote about the hardships of being a SAHM?

Who cares about SAHM? I know you don't. Feminists sure don't. But marriage as an institution is hanging on by a thread while people are patting themselves on the back for being a positive thing for relationships. Ok!