A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

Or it is because of the simple fact that the health care system spends SO much more money on women's health and needs than men's. Why do you think there is such a gigantic disparity in terms of the gender death gap? It's not toughness, it is $$$$.

it's actually not. It's always been that way. Estrogen provides a lot of protection for the brain. Women are just tougher- it's biology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids were better off when they had the freedom to run around, manage their own social situations, learn from mistakes and had to work for a living delivering papers and mowing lawns/raking leaves and had an after school job. Boys that still do these things these days are the ones that seem to be able to master life in one way or another. Boys need purpose besides video games and schoolwork they really don't care about so they are tutored and coddled and medicated and then parents wonder wtf happened.

This x1000000

Kids don’t care about a lot of the things modern parents make them do to appeal to colleges. They’d be happier and better prepared for the world by developing independence and critical thinking.

This thread reminds me of Fight Club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lack of a college degree really held back Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Ted Turner, Michael Dell, and David Geffen from any real success. Poor guys.

A lot of these guys figured out what top-level NBA players know: superstars are wasting their time if they stick around college for four years.

This was my takeaway. Most people (including the educators interviewed in the article) are missing the point. The engineering and business schools still have plenty of men. Men are also skipping that step altogether and going straight into business. It’s the LACs that are becoming more and more female, and that’s been going on a while. Do you really think having liberal arts colleges become the province of women is going to make either women or liberal arts colleges more powerful? To the contrary, these schools, and those professions, will become “pink ghettos,” to the extent they aren’t already. How many times has it been posted on here that it is easier for men to get into William & Mary than UVA? There’s also been much discussion about how W&M seems to be losing ground to UVA, financially and otherwise. The two are not unrelated.

These schools have made it clear that they’re not interested in educating men (especially white men), and the men took the hint. Especially considering the rising cost of a college education, they’ve also realized that the value ROI isn’t there, anymore. The article seemed more about the schools themselves realizing that this is a problem, more so than the men whining. As these colleges become more and more expensive, they can’t afford for 1/2 of the population, especially the 1/2 that has always been more powerful in the past, to decide that their credential is unnecessary.

So, women are going to get what they want; these prestigious colleges will become “safe spaces” that prefer women. But the irony is, that in the process, the value of the degree will have been devalued.

as ñ
I don’t think this is an implausible theory. Lower income white boys may be rationally entering the workplace instead of college. Probably a big urban-rural difference that explains higher enrollment of male POC.

Many of those 'lower income white boys' can start earning $20-25+/hr as an apprentice right out of college. Apprentice electricians already make $50k+ per year, which is more than many BS degrees from college earn out of college. During that time you can immediately start contributing to your retirement accounts. By the time a college grad has finished college, they're already 4 years behind in savings compared to the 'lower income white boy' who has been saving for 4+ years. After 4+ years, the apprentice is now well on their way to become a master in their trade, and can be earning $70k and easily over $100k+ with OT. Meanwhile, Suzy and her 'prestigious' college degree haven't even begun to save a dime yet for either their retirement or a home because they are busy paying $400 per month now in student loan debt while they're making a crappy $15-20/hr salary in an entry level job that basically doesn't even require a college degree. Have fun with 10+ years of debt for that worthless degree.

Imagine wasting time in college all through 2010-2020. You missed out on the historic bull run of the market during which you could have easily tripled your money. You spent 4 years in college earning $0 (actually negative dollars), then are spending the other half of the decade pissing your money away down the toilet on interest on your student loan debt. Meanwhile, the kid who went to trade school to become an electrician or an elevator repair man earning $70k+ has been saving money for 10 years, has tripled their money on the market, and has zero debt. Oh yeah, and tons of job security because you can't offshore many trade jobs that require a license.

But this isn't what many are doing. They are are taking low-end service jobs, being regularly unemployed and wandering aimlessly and taking on consumer debt rather than student loan debt.

Do you have support for that assertion? Because when I look at service jobs, I see predominantly females and some Latino men. It’s pretty rare to see a white guy in unskilled service jobs….maybe a few at places like pet stores, book stores, Home Depot (but those are old guys who I think are mostly former tradesman on disability retirement).

From the article data and examples, the young men were working service jobs like package delivery for Fedex or working in an Amazon warehouse, not skilled trade jobs.

You'd be surprised how much package delivery guys for FedEx and UPS can make after a just a few years. Just as much, if not more than, many college grad degrees. FedEx is also well known for hiring from within. Most managers in FedEx started as delivery drivers. Now they make $100k. You can also use a starting gig at FedEx to springboard into getting a CDL to transport specialized good and materials. $50-70k salaries if you put a few years in at FedEx with zero college debt required. A huge company with room for growth as well.

These delivery jobs are rated as some of the most likely to be automated in the next ten years. College campuses already have robots doing many deliveries, and the expectation is that trucking with be automated as well.

Plus Amazon is a crappy place to work, with delivery on such strict time times they are peeing in bottles and being fired for missing quotas for circumstances the can’t controls. . And if they do promote from within, you can’t go very high with a Hs education. It’s not like if you work hard, you will be in the C -suite. More like, if you work hard you will be one of several warehouse workers topping out at 40k. And from there, there is no upward mobility. Meanwhile, the kid with a college,degree will start at 6 figures— and have a bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

What we are seeing is fear manifesting itself as laziness and detachment. I've been haunted by something a medical professional told me about the male student body at a highly competitive institution of higher learning. He said that each year, they are seeing more men who have never had an intimate relationship. On its face, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but one reason given was fear of fallout from a relationship gone wrong (such as adverse social media) that would "ruin" their future. At the root is anxiety and lack of confidence in communication skills. Remember, these are motivated high achieving men who are so worried about opening up, they would rather not have any relationships and instead turn to porn.

As this thread shows, we still want to tell makes to stop being snowflakes and to toughen up any time they struggle. This attitude makes it less likely that those in need of help will seek it.

Remember, it's not about whether one gender is better or stronger than another. We should be concerned about developing healthy empowered individuals in elementary school and beyond. They aren't "weak" for struggling, but that's the message they are receiving, so they check out.

It is true that a lot of it is fear, but that's the thing- the solution IS toughening up. Part of it is accepting that rejection WILL happen, inevitably, and it's fine. You'll be okay. If you ask someone out and they say no, you'll still be standing. If youre relationship ends and your heart is broken, you'll be okay. This seems to be something most women have grasped, that rejection is a necessary part of life, but young men seem completely stymied by. We have coddled young men for the past couple decades and it's completely backfired. The solution is actually teaching young men that they CAN handle things, that they NEED to be tough and somewhat stoic, and that failure is a part of life and perfectly fine. As it stands now, we seem to be herding them into further and further incompetence and alienation. And it's sad.

The point is that they didn't learn to disengage in high school. The seeds were planted at a young age. I could go on and on about this, but I was a scout leader for two different age groups for many years. Over the years, I watched my boys as they made their way through school and life. These were good kids, with involved parents, and some of them blew me away with their natural curiosity and creativity, even if the behavior of some of them made me want to run away screaming and never come back. Over the years, I learned to structure the meetings so that we would do something more educational and then immediately shift to something active. This worked fairly well, and most of the boys stuck with it. What makes me so sad is that by middle school, many of these more active boys were struggling in school so much that they started checking out. These are kids who visited Civil War sites and were interested and recited facts they learned on their own. They weren't lazy, stupid, or even undisciplined necessary, it's just that school became a place they hated because they couldn't quite get the mechanics of being a "good student" right at the right time. Their parents fought with them, sat to make sure they did their homework, punished them for not getting it down, and they still managed to screw up. That's not every boy, but it was some; medicated by middle school and less enthusiastic about almost everything.

I agree that more unstructured activity would help. Even sports were less structured and less competition based decades ago, and that probably helped develop more independence. One problem is how can you develop independence when you are a year or two away from being mature enough to handle expectations at school? Why is it more important to reinforce in 7th grade the undesirable consequences of turning in an assignment a day late than it is to make school a place where kids are interested and set up to succeed? Meeting the requirements for being a compliant student is not the only measure of someone's worth or capacity to have a good life, but that is what it can feel like for kids. And trust me, I'm not blaming teachers, but the system itself.

[Anonymous]

It’s not about toughness versus weakness. It’s about resiliency and flexible thinking. That’s what you need to not be crushed by our discouraged by life’s setbacks and disappointments. Encouraging kids to be “tough” is not the answer. You can flexibility—bend instead of breaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids were better off when they had the freedom to run around, manage their own social situations, learn from mistakes and had to work for a living delivering papers and mowing lawns/raking leaves and had an after school job. Boys that still do these things these days are the ones that seem to be able to master life in one way or another. Boys need purpose besides video games and schoolwork they really don't care about so they are tutored and coddled and medicated and then parents wonder wtf happened.

This x1000000

Kids don’t care about a lot of the things modern parents make them do to appeal to colleges. They’d be happier and better prepared for the world by developing independence and critical thinking.

This thread reminds me of Fight Club.

What if they are tutored and coddled because they are so miserable and unhappy at a young age that a protective instinct kicks in that maybe isn't healthy? Why do you want depressed, suicidal 4th and 5th graders? Will that really create better men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not about toughness versus weakness. It’s about resiliency and flexible thinking. That’s what you need to not be crushed by our discouraged by life’s setbacks and disappointments. Encouraging kids to be “tough” is not the answer. You can flexibility—bend instead of breaking.

Resiliency = toughness, lol. Theyre literally synonyms. So if you're teaching kids to be resilient, you're teaching them to be tough, Something sorely lacking in men today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

Yet women are crying on here every day about how to bag a rich guy. Sorry, but plenty of women are losers and users. They work dead end jobs, for crap pay, and then bear the brunt of raising their kids. Not seeing how they are winning by being tough. They seem angry, anxious, bitter and depressed.

I think as women give up on that, and realize men aren't really capable of keeping up economically anymore, then youre going to see a lot of those priorities shift. Besides, men are supposed to be providers, that's what they've been all through history. And now theyre failing. And it's REALLY unattractive, and not going to attract any high value female. Oh well.

+1. My sister in law does research as an oncology pharmacist. Wanted kids, but never found a guy who didn’t want to sponge off her. So, she moved near us, and has been a third parent to my kids. Which has been wonderful all around. My kid are very, very close to her, and as they have gotten older have spent larger and larger parts of each summer with her. DD spent a significant piece of COVID lockdown with her aunt and said it felt more like living with an awesome roommate than parents. She wrote a colleg essay about her aunt being the person she admires most.

I’m so grateful you SIL has been there for my kids. She travels our family a lot— we just get an extra bedroom. She travels alone with my kids to cool places as they have gotten older. She ans I travel out of the country every year (or did until COVID). Her family didn’t work out the way she planned, but she has had very close meaningful relationships with my kids that will last her lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

Yet women are crying on here every day about how to bag a rich guy. Sorry, but plenty of women are losers and users. They work dead end jobs, for crap pay, and then bear the brunt of raising their kids. Not seeing how they are winning by being tough. They seem angry, anxious, bitter and depressed.

DCUM is not real life. Do you know any real, live women? Or do they run screaming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

Yet women are crying on here every day about how to bag a rich guy. Sorry, but plenty of women are losers and users. They work dead end jobs, for crap pay, and then bear the brunt of raising their kids. Not seeing how they are winning by being tough. They seem angry, anxious, bitter and depressed.

DCUM is not real life. Do you know any real, live women? Or do they run screaming?

Do you? Most women are not killing it out in the real world. Get real and out of your bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

Yet women are crying on here every day about how to bag a rich guy. Sorry, but plenty of women are losers and users. They work dead end jobs, for crap pay, and then bear the brunt of raising their kids. Not seeing how they are winning by being tough. They seem angry, anxious, bitter and depressed.

I think as women give up on that, and realize men aren't really capable of keeping up economically anymore, then youre going to see a lot of those priorities shift. Besides, men are supposed to be providers, that's what they've been all through history. And now theyre failing. And it's REALLY unattractive, and not going to attract any high value female. Oh well.

+1. My sister in law does research as an oncology pharmacist. Wanted kids, but never found a guy who didn’t want to sponge off her. So, she moved near us, and has been a third parent to my kids. Which has been wonderful all around. My kid are very, very close to her, and as they have gotten older have spent larger and larger parts of each summer with her. DD spent a significant piece of COVID lockdown with her aunt and said it felt more like living with an awesome roommate than parents. She wrote a colleg essay about her aunt being the person she admires most.

I’m so grateful you SIL has been there for my kids. She travels our family a lot— we just get an extra bedroom. She travels alone with my kids to cool places as they have gotten older. She ans I travel out of the country every year (or did until COVID). Her family didn’t work out the way she planned, but she has had very close meaningful relationships with my kids that will last her lifetime.

That's awesome. I'm a young women and more and more young women I know are thinking about sperm banks. Egg freezing, for a certain high economic subset, is de rigeur. And of course, there's adoption, or, as in your sister's case, a super close relationship with the younger generation of your family, nieces or nephews or cousins. It all scratches that itch and is a great solution. And, IMO, is far preferable than settling for a man that is going to underearn you and also be resentful and angry of that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lack of a college degree really held back Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Ted Turner, Michael Dell, and David Geffen from any real success. Poor guys.

A lot of these guys figured out what top-level NBA players know: superstars are wasting their time if they stick around college for four years.

This was my takeaway. Most people (including the educators interviewed in the article) are missing the point. The engineering and business schools still have plenty of men. Men are also skipping that step altogether and going straight into business. It’s the LACs that are becoming more and more female, and that’s been going on a while. Do you really think having liberal arts colleges become the province of women is going to make either women or liberal arts colleges more powerful? To the contrary, these schools, and those professions, will become “pink ghettos,” to the extent they aren’t already. How many times has it been posted on here that it is easier for men to get into William & Mary than UVA? There’s also been much discussion about how W&M seems to be losing ground to UVA, financially and otherwise. The two are not unrelated.

These schools have made it clear that they’re not interested in educating men (especially white men), and the men took the hint. Especially considering the rising cost of a college education, they’ve also realized that the value ROI isn’t there, anymore. The article seemed more about the schools themselves realizing that this is a problem, more so than the men whining. As these colleges become more and more expensive, they can’t afford for 1/2 of the population, especially the 1/2 that has always been more powerful in the past, to decide that their credential is unnecessary.

So, women are going to get what they want; these prestigious colleges will become “safe spaces” that prefer women. But the irony is, that in the process, the value of the degree will have been devalued.

as ñ
I don’t think this is an implausible theory. Lower income white boys may be rationally entering the workplace instead of college. Probably a big urban-rural difference that explains higher enrollment of male POC.

Many of those 'lower income white boys' can start earning $20-25+/hr as an apprentice right out of college. Apprentice electricians already make $50k+ per year, which is more than many BS degrees from college earn out of college. During that time you can immediately start contributing to your retirement accounts. By the time a college grad has finished college, they're already 4 years behind in savings compared to the 'lower income white boy' who has been saving for 4+ years. After 4+ years, the apprentice is now well on their way to become a master in their trade, and can be earning $70k and easily over $100k+ with OT. Meanwhile, Suzy and her 'prestigious' college degree haven't even begun to save a dime yet for either their retirement or a home because they are busy paying $400 per month now in student loan debt while they're making a crappy $15-20/hr salary in an entry level job that basically doesn't even require a college degree. Have fun with 10+ years of debt for that worthless degree.

Imagine wasting time in college all through 2010-2020. You missed out on the historic bull run of the market during which you could have easily tripled your money. You spent 4 years in college earning $0 (actually negative dollars), then are spending the other half of the decade pissing your money away down the toilet on interest on your student loan debt. Meanwhile, the kid who went to trade school to become an electrician or an elevator repair man earning $70k+ has been saving money for 10 years, has tripled their money on the market, and has zero debt. Oh yeah, and tons of job security because you can't offshore many trade jobs that require a license.

But this isn't what many are doing. They are are taking low-end service jobs, being regularly unemployed and wandering aimlessly and taking on consumer debt rather than student loan debt.

Do you have support for that assertion? Because when I look at service jobs, I see predominantly females and some Latino men. It’s pretty rare to see a white guy in unskilled service jobs….maybe a few at places like pet stores, book stores, Home Depot (but those are old guys who I think are mostly former tradesman on disability retirement).

From the article data and examples, the young men were working service jobs like package delivery for Fedex or working in an Amazon warehouse, not skilled trade jobs.

You'd be surprised how much package delivery guys for FedEx and UPS can make after a just a few years. Just as much, if not more than, many college grad degrees. FedEx is also well known for hiring from within. Most managers in FedEx started as delivery drivers. Now they make $100k. You can also use a starting gig at FedEx to springboard into getting a CDL to transport specialized good and materials. $50-70k salaries if you put a few years in at FedEx with zero college debt required. A huge company with room for growth as well.

LOL on Fedex - room to grow...you right out the door. Good friend from HS - strong in STEM, but lacked the discipline at that time for college. Ended up at Fedex, worked his way up the chain with regional responsibilities, and they canned him just weeks shy of when he would be first eligible for his retirement benefits. He had no plan to retire as he enjoyed the work, but Fedex had other ideas. Of course occurred right in the first year of the Great Recession. No comparable jobs available and no one hiring someone of his background for service work. He ended up going back to school, got a bachelor's in accounting, and landed a job soon after graduation. Then made a move to another one a few years back. He appreciates that he has been a role model for his kids, grandkids, and extend family, but readily admits he much preferred the path he was on till Fedex decided to nickel and dime its work force.

UPS is union. Fed Ex is just another company that will stick you in the can when it’s good and ready. No comparison!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

Or it is because of the simple fact that the health care system spends SO much more money on women's health and needs than men's. Why do you think there is such a gigantic disparity in terms of the gender death gap? It's not toughness, it is $$$$.

Let’s look at reality. Per capita, we spend 9% MORE on health care for boys that girls, ages 0-18. That’s the demo we are looking at in terms of disinterest in college. .

For ages 18-64, we spend 26% more on women than men. This is because women have babies, and medical treatment related to having babies is not cheap. Closely related to this, women are primarily responsible for birth control, and that costs money and requires annual checkups. As a society, we need women to have babies. And men don’t seem that interested in taking over the birth control.

For age 65+, we spend 7% more on women than men. This is attributed to more women in skilled nursing facilities, which is also expensive. This makes sense, because women love longer than men, and are more likely to outlive their spouse and be unable to live alone. Also, women living longer = more likely to have chronic conditions.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/AgeandGenderHighlights.pdf

Pretty sure that while you are complaining about spending more on women because they need maternity care, you are also in favor of restricting the right to have an abortion and not excited about wading a condom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, men are falling behind in every single factor. It's crazy. So many men are just completely checking out, giving themselves up to a life of video games, porn, and maybe some low income job to collect a paycheck. It's extremely sad and concerning.

I think a lot of times women are just tougher. Females have a much higher infancy survival rate and just seem a lot more capable of handling BS, be it physical, emotional, mental, whatever. They just kind of... adapt.

There's always been slogans about "women are tougher" but over the stress this country has been in for the past 20 years, we're really seeing it be proven true beyond all doubt. And there's really nothing anyone can do about it, save maybe banning these things like China has done recently.

Yet women are crying on here every day about how to bag a rich guy. Sorry, but plenty of women are losers and users. They work dead end jobs, for crap pay, and then bear the brunt of raising their kids. Not seeing how they are winning by being tough. They seem angry, anxious, bitter and depressed.

I think as women give up on that, and realize men aren't really capable of keeping up economically anymore, then youre going to see a lot of those priorities shift. Besides, men are supposed to be providers, that's what they've been all through history. And now theyre failing. And it's REALLY unattractive, and not going to attract any high value female. Oh well.

+1. My sister in law does research as an oncology pharmacist. Wanted kids, but never found a guy who didn’t want to sponge off her. So, she moved near us, and has been a third parent to my kids. Which has been wonderful all around. My kid are very, very close to her, and as they have gotten older have spent larger and larger parts of each summer with her. DD spent a significant piece of COVID lockdown with her aunt and said it felt more like living with an awesome roommate than parents. She wrote a colleg essay about her aunt being the person she admires most.

I’m so grateful you SIL has been there for my kids. She travels our family a lot— we just get an extra bedroom. She travels alone with my kids to cool places as they have gotten older. She ans I travel out of the country every year (or did until COVID). Her family didn’t work out the way she planned, but she has had very close meaningful relationships with my kids that will last her lifetime.

That's awesome. I'm a young women and more and more young women I know are thinking about sperm banks. Egg freezing, for a certain high economic subset, is de rigeur. And of course, there's adoption, or, as in your sister's case, a super close relationship with the younger generation of your family, nieces or nephews or cousins. It all scratches that itch and is a great solution. And, IMO, is far preferable than settling for a man that is going to underearn you and also be resentful and angry of that fact.

I’m the PP and you sound like a smart young lady. I hope my DD is as sensible. I’m married to someone who is really my equal and it’s great. I feel very lucky that I found someone who is an equal partner— financially, emotionally, as a parent— when I was 22. I know many women similarly situated. Both parents work FT and Dad may well be the one taking the kid to the dentist or cooking dinner. But I also know single moms (by choice and by death or divirceJ doing well, a male windower, and people like my SIL who become surrogate parents. Foe steering and formal mentor programs aspire another way to go. There are many ways to make a family. The ones that don’t work have been women who marry loser guys, know the relationship isn’t great and have kids to try to fix it. Ultimately, they have ended up divorced, but sharing custody with a mediocre ex whose a crappy parent but has the kids 1/2 the time, which isn’t good for their kids. And I know women staying in bad marriages to avoid having the kids live with an ex 50% of the time.

I certainly have mom friends who are divorced or plan to be divorced as soon as kids head to college. And some have said they wish they had gone the sperm donor route. Because now they have permanent ties to a loser who has a say over parenting, having kids who have to split time, which is hard for the kids and the mom who doesn’t have the for birthdays, holidays etc. and have someone with parental rights making bad decisions for the kids— from letting them play unlimited video games and have no bedtime at dads house, to a mom friend whose ex is trying to stop the kids from getting a COVID vaccine.

I’m glad young women no longer feel that they must settle because they have to be married with 2.5 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So now we need to tell boys to toughen up? I thought that was creating toxic entitled males?

Can boys not toughen up and deal with real life without being toxic? They can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

No, judging by some of these posts, I guess not.

My DH is a white male, from a middle class family. Went to college, got a good paying job, cooks, takes care of kids, fixes stuff around the house. How did he manage to do all that without being a toxic entitled male?