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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Proof is in the pudding, babe. women are choosing not to get married or have kids. It’s not because DCUM is populated by unhappy harpies. It’s because it’s too hard and unrewarding.

Absolutely true. I’m no “female incel”. I have sons and brothers and a father who was a great provider.

I am, however, a product of my lived experience. I’m attractive, fit, interesting and attractive. I’m independently wealthy thanks to that same father I love. But the idea of taking on a man on a full time basis again isn’t attractive to me in any way. I take lovers when I want to and won’t cohabitate or marry one again. Ever. So much hassle. I’ have yet to meet a man who does life better than me. If I find one, my opinion might change- but it’s been 8 years of enjoying my divorced life and I haven’t found anyone even remotely close.‘I love men! Love sleeping with them, flirting with them, being friends with them. At the same time, I will not tie myself to one legally or financially ever again.

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy that women who have never married are focusing on the “unpaid labor” aspect. That’s more of an issue that arises in marriage later on, after kids arrive. I think the likelier explanations are increased working areas, fewer social interactions generally (we see this in studies of Americans having fewer and fewer friendships, some of which would of course lead to romance), economic instability and fewer college educated, emotionally stable and well paid eligible men. More than ever, women are looking for income and education in men.

Do you think young women are stupid? It’s not hard to see.

Dating isn’t like marriage. It’s hard to see down the line how someone will interact with you once kids come along. Especially if you have lust blinders on.

This was the first generation of young women who truly saw moms work in near equal measure to dads- and breadwin in record numbers. This is also the first generation of young women who were raised in the activity laden nightmare that is modern day parenting. They heard terms like “mental load” and heard about the invisible work of parenting. They saw their parents work their ass off just to pay for daycare, while their standard of living wasn’t guaranteed to rise. This generation of women is neither smarter nor dumber than past- but they sure are more educated on the realities of cost of living/kids/quality of life issues

Agree to disagree. A subset of women may be thinking along these lines and not wanting to marry sure, but is that the primary reason for the decline in marriage? I personally think the other factors I raised, specifically the availability of well paid and educated men, are more relevant to the choice not to marry, and the workload balance is a greater cause for divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy that women who have never married are focusing on the “unpaid labor” aspect. That’s more of an issue that arises in marriage later on, after kids arrive. I think the likelier explanations are increased working areas, fewer social interactions generally (we see this in studies of Americans having fewer and fewer friendships, some of which would of course lead to romance), economic instability and fewer college educated, emotionally stable and well paid eligible men. More than ever, women are looking for income and education in men.

Somewhat.

But also, the “cat is out of the bag” how helpless married men are to live with and raise kids with. That is no longer a secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it's obviously unsustainable to subsidize the entire cost of having a child. That said, $75k is $75k more than anything provided in the US.

The point is that the costs of raising a child have gotten completely out of control. Then they offer a few thousand bucks an throw their hands in the air "we just can't figure out why nobody wants kids!"

When the answer is glaringly obvious - it costs millions to raise kids nowadays, and nobody has that kind of money. The average person should be able to afford housing, groceries, healthcare, college tuition, childcare, etc on a modest salary.

Until that issue is fixed, people won't have more kids.

This right here is the answer. Its bizarre taht people act like its such a mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

And I think the big precursor to this was women returning to the work force full time in large numbers. Say what you want about the SAHM dynamic, but for women okay with (or wanting to) perform those duties, it feels a lot less like "unpaid" labor and instead more like a partnership. Obviously if you hate housekeeping and childrearing then that isn't going to work for you. But as a long-time SAHM with a financially successful husband, I don't feel like my labor is unpaid. I live a very nice life. And I am a lot less resentful than most of them women on this thread.

Sorry but I don’t think anyone was ecstatic with husband=paycheck + someone to feed, clean for, plan stuff, solo raise kids, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

The basis of this thread is a WSj article that looks at national trends and provides supporting data.

It's not like this was just somebody randomly opining on the topic.

Also, the reason the article exists is because the relationship between men working and earning and childcare/household contributions is breaking down

Yes. So when the man gets paid more, there is a balance between the work that both partners provide, paid and unpaid. However, research has shown that men do NOT increase their non-paid labor in the house when women get paid more and/or have more intense schedules. Hence why the frustration of so many women who work their a* off, make the most $, and come home to take care of an extra toddler in form of a man. A man-child is not very sexually attractive. This is the reality for the future, as women graduate from college at higher rates and are more successful and will make more money.
I don't hate man. I'm happily married with two grown sons. But if I were to have a daughter, I would absolutely disapprove that she'd marry someone from a lower socioeconomic background and/or someone who doesn't make a lot of money and is ambitious. The data show that she'd probably have to do two jobs, while her H would contribute incrementally to the labor.

my 30 year old niece dumped a guy because he was unambitious and lazy, at home and at work. Double whammy.

She is now married to a plumber who is ambitious and does a lot at home. She has a masters degree.

Excellent!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy that women who have never married are focusing on the “unpaid labor” aspect. That’s more of an issue that arises in marriage later on, after kids arrive. I think the likelier explanations are increased working areas, fewer social interactions generally (we see this in studies of Americans having fewer and fewer friendships, some of which would of course lead to romance), economic instability and fewer college educated, emotionally stable and well paid eligible men. More than ever, women are looking for income and education in men.

Do you think young women are stupid? It’s not hard to see.

Dating isn’t like marriage. It’s hard to see down the line how someone will interact with you once kids come along. Especially if you have lust blinders on.

This was the first generation of young women who truly saw moms work in near equal measure to dads- and breadwin in record numbers. This is also the first generation of young women who were raised in the activity laden nightmare that is modern day parenting. They heard terms like “mental load” and heard about the invisible work of parenting. They saw their parents work their ass off just to pay for daycare, while their standard of living wasn’t guaranteed to rise. This generation of women is neither smarter nor dumber than past- but they sure are more educated on the realities of cost of living/kids/quality of life issues

Agree to disagree. A subset of women may be thinking along these lines and not wanting to marry sure, but is that the primary reason for the decline in marriage? I personally think the other factors I raised, specifically the availability of well paid and educated men, are more relevant to the choice not to marry, and the workload balance is a greater cause for divorce.

You think women are so dumb that they cannot think in advance about what it would be like to be married with kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it's obviously unsustainable to subsidize the entire cost of having a child. That said, $75k is $75k more than anything provided in the US.

The point is that the costs of raising a child have gotten completely out of control. Then they offer a few thousand bucks an throw their hands in the air "we just can't figure out why nobody wants kids!"

When the answer is glaringly obvious - it costs millions to raise kids nowadays, and nobody has that kind of money. The average person should be able to afford housing, groceries, healthcare, college tuition, childcare, etc on a modest salary.

Until that issue is fixed, people won't have more kids.

This right here is the answer. It’s bizarre taht people act like it’s such a mystery.

Everyone - especially rich white people and the WSJ - desperately want to avoid the inevitable solution: efficient taxation and redistribution of wealth to create a safety net for children and young families.

Hence why the gnashing of teeth about feminism, incels, education gaps, toxic masculinity, birth control/abortion, WOH moms, lazy men, who “deserve” parental leave, breadwinners….those are all just cultural distractions to avoid the obvious (yet imperfect) solution.

Tax the rich and spend less on defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy that women who have never married are focusing on the “unpaid labor” aspect. That’s more of an issue that arises in marriage later on, after kids arrive. I think the likelier explanations are increased working areas, fewer social interactions generally (we see this in studies of Americans having fewer and fewer friendships, some of which would of course lead to romance), economic instability and fewer college educated, emotionally stable and well paid eligible men. More than ever, women are looking for income and education in men.

Do you think young women are stupid? It’s not hard to see.

Dating isn’t like marriage. It’s hard to see down the line how someone will interact with you once kids come along. Especially if you have lust blinders on.

This was the first generation of young women who truly saw moms work in near equal measure to dads- and breadwin in record numbers. This is also the first generation of young women who were raised in the activity laden nightmare that is modern day parenting. They heard terms like “mental load” and heard about the invisible work of parenting. They saw their parents work their ass off just to pay for daycare, while their standard of living wasn’t guaranteed to rise. This generation of women is neither smarter nor dumber than past- but they sure are more educated on the realities of cost of living/kids/quality of life issues

Agree to disagree. A subset of women may be thinking along these lines and not wanting to marry sure, but is that the primary reason for the decline in marriage? I personally think the other factors I raised, specifically the availability of well paid and educated men, are more relevant to the choice not to marry, and the workload balance is a greater cause for divorce.

You think women are so dumb that they cannot think in advance about what it would be like to be married with kids?

Well, men can’t and don’t.

They just say sounds good, I love kids, and then never grow or adapt to their family and kids’ needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it's obviously unsustainable to subsidize the entire cost of having a child. That said, $75k is $75k more than anything provided in the US.

The point is that the costs of raising a child have gotten completely out of control. Then they offer a few thousand bucks an throw their hands in the air "we just can't figure out why nobody wants kids!"

When the answer is glaringly obvious - it costs millions to raise kids nowadays, and nobody has that kind of money. The average person should be able to afford housing, groceries, healthcare, college tuition, childcare, etc on a modest salary.

Until that issue is fixed, people won't have more kids.

This right here is the answer. It’s bizarre taht people act like it’s such a mystery.

Everyone - especially rich white people and the WSJ - desperately want to avoid the inevitable solution: efficient taxation and redistribution of wealth to create a safety net for children and young families.

Hence why the gnashing of teeth about feminism, incels, education gaps, toxic masculinity, birth control/abortion, WOH moms, lazy men, who “deserve” parental leave, breadwinners….those are all just cultural distractions to avoid the obvious (yet imperfect) solution.

Tax the rich and spend less on defense.

Sorry, who or what is going to parent and raises kids? The government?! That’s your idea of utopia for smart, caring, healthy kids!?!

[Anonymous]

Well 50% of kids have no father figure in their life since birth…. May as well be Uncle Sam daycare, preschool and aftercare.

[Anonymous]

Parenting is a hard, expensive, mentally taxing and thankless job. Women & men probably both are better off living for themselves.

[Anonymous]

If government wants future laborers and tax payers, they'll have to make it affordable for locals to raise kids or let immigrants in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy that women who have never married are focusing on the “unpaid labor” aspect. That’s more of an issue that arises in marriage later on, after kids arrive. I think the likelier explanations are increased working areas, fewer social interactions generally (we see this in studies of Americans having fewer and fewer friendships, some of which would of course lead to romance), economic instability and fewer college educated, emotionally stable and well paid eligible men. More than ever, women are looking for income and education in men.

Do you think young women are stupid? It’s not hard to see.

Dating isn’t like marriage. It’s hard to see down the line how someone will interact with you once kids come along. Especially if you have lust blinders on.

This was the first generation of young women who truly saw moms work in near equal measure to dads- and breadwin in record numbers. This is also the first generation of young women who were raised in the activity laden nightmare that is modern day parenting. They heard terms like “mental load” and heard about the invisible work of parenting. They saw their parents work their ass off just to pay for daycare, while their standard of living wasn’t guaranteed to rise. This generation of women is neither smarter nor dumber than past- but they sure are more educated on the realities of cost of living/kids/quality of life issues

Agree to disagree. A subset of women may be thinking along these lines and not wanting to marry sure, but is that the primary reason for the decline in marriage? I personally think the other factors I raised, specifically the availability of well paid and educated men, are more relevant to the choice not to marry, and the workload balance is a greater cause for divorce.

You think women are so dumb that they cannot think in advance about what it would be like to be married with kids?

You’ve suggested twice that my comment means I think women are dumb. Bizarre take. I think most women do like the idea of marriage if they could find someone of equal status (emotional intelligence, hardworking, educated) and unfortunately that’s the real issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Parenting is a hard, expensive, mentally taxing and thankless job. Women & men probably both are better off living for themselves.

If you expect “payment” for every job you do, it’s fantasy land. Raising kids wont pay you for your effort. Neither will be helping to provide for an elderly parent. In life we do some jobs for free.