Marriage is a horrible deal for women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And who are these men, exactly? If you took everyone I know from elementary school to a graduate degree and/or have worked with, maybe 4 or 5% hit it big. Meaning million dollar salaries or WSJ stories, etc. The rest have had mediocre to good careers.

So let me guess, that 4 or 5% magically married DCUM posters who are in shape and run around in yoga pants?

Are you asking about men who make over half a million with SAHM? Hedge fund managers, real estate developers, tech sales, partners at law firms, built and sold own businesses etc. but these men are fine with SAHM wives their marriages last until men cheat , on average

The worst are these 200k guys with wives who also make 200k. This is when the woman is exhausted to the brink of insanity as they tend to be cheap and controlling with resources on home aide and the wives are that cheaper “second shift”

I’m a $230K woman and although a second income would be nice I wouldn’t marry anyone who made less than me. I have made a ton of career mistakes so I figure any competent guy should be out earning me by now.

Exhibit A

Sorry this bothers you. But I’m highly educated, worked hard and sacrificed a lot to get to this income. And most of my female friends make more. So I figure any intelligent hard working guy from similar background could have done the same. If he didn’t something is wrong and we are not compatible.

That is like the top 1% of US salaries. What on earth do these people do? Everybody can't be a lawyer or hedge fund manager.

Why should she not require the top 1% if she grew up in these circles?

I am a recent immigrant who moved here as a teenager. All my peers from back home ( all from UMC homes) who moved here before 25 make 200k with the exception of PhD holders in academia and myself ( I stayed home for almost a decade).

Lawyers, doctors, engineers, public accountants, some pharmacists, some specialist nurses 15-20 years into their careers usually make 200k.

PP is talking generalities, and she will know when to make exceptions to her rule. But at 43, if you come from an UMC background, your only excuse for not making 200k should be that it's not that important to you.

If it's important to PP, why should she not require it from a partner?

Some of you think women should get married to any Tom or Dick who shows up. It's better to be single than married to someone who does not share your worldview.

This is such a pervasive problem. Women should have exceptionally high standards but having any at all really triggers some DCUM posters.

A man married to an average woman gets— at least— $500,000 equivalent services of a surrogate and egg donor if they have two children.

A woman married to an average man gets less than nothing, because he is a net drain on her resources. Donor sperm is not especially costly.

If you’re not getting a top 10-15% man, you’re getting a bad deal.

bad math

How much do you think surrogacy and egg donation costs?

The math was off but not too far off. Surrogacy cost $150k; egg donation could be free but with select designer egg up $40k. The issue is not that but the wife also provides free labor for the totality of raising the children! It is a net drain on her time, more so than for men as they tend to underdeliver with household duties. There was in fact an economic research that women put in these duties over $100k/year in lost pension savings, career opportunities and free labor

Perfectly stated!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The math is very simple in fact easy to show how working women are at the short end of the stick. As we see from another thread, services of a full time house manager at the current market rate are $100K/year. Let's imagine we have 2 equal earners, each making 200K in the family, but only woman pulls off after school duties, running errands etc. She de-facto works 2 shifts contributing 300K into household, while husband commutes less and contributes 200K.

Half of the house manager job is on her, so even with this very flawed premise, it would be 250K, not 300K.

Anonymous wrote:With lower paid women, the math is even worse: she would have to commute for example, to make extra $70k/year, while also doing a "second shift" with kids contributing 100K. So she contributed 170K working 2 shifts, where he contributed 200K working one. She also now has less time left for example, to grow professionallly and get certifications, attend a grad program to even out the income gap. She is also mommy tracked a her work for always being late, stressed, they argue at home etc.

No one at that income level needs or hires house managers, and she isn't doing that, either.

Also: there are tons of single women in low-paid, dead-end, low-ambition, "mommy track" work. Who's holding them down? Lack of ambition is evenly spread in the population, and a married woman, just like a single one, may be perfectly content (or unable to achieve anything other than) a low-wattage job.

Anonymous wrote:The government doesn't offer her or kids an insurance, good free schools, good parental leave to remain healthy and succeed. She has no way out.

This is how marriage becomes a low paid hard labor and servitude for many working moms. Women have figured it out, and DINK movement is huge in DMV area.

Of course she has a way out: divorce and leave the children to the husband. I mean didn't you say she should be paid for the 100% of pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing? That's what you do with the service you provide to others; so wrap up your services and depart like a chef who has cooked a week's worth of meals without eating them, or a cleaning crew that spit-and-polished the house without living in it. Leave the kids. Let's see if they are all his.

You know what else is huge in the DMV area? Fertility clinics, where women are lining up to perform a "service" you think they should be paid for.

It's not the lack of ambition, but often lack of skills and women having kids in their 20s that's holding them back on the corporate ladder. Without being in a highly paid field, she's stuck with very slow growing corporate salaries beginning from 60K a year, and everyone knows about salaries deflation. Men marry on average 2 years later, and start having kids later (closer to 30s), while facing less discrimination at work. There is no single research that proves women lack ambition en masse vs men. It's actually the opposite.

And why is HE not pick up his crap at home, so that the wife doesn't need to run 2 shifts?

On your suggestion, I know 2 families where an high paying exW in fact took off with a lover and left kids with a much lower paid exH. She paid him alimony but his career never recovered after the divorce. He ended up stuck in mid 150K in his profession after being de-facto single dad for 10 years.

Professional women line up for IVF because they don't need dads on board, more trouble than actual contribution in most cases.

This is well said and very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's ask it this way. If you could go back in time, knowing what you know now,

What is your gender
Would you marry again
Would you marry the same person
Would you have children

For me,
F
N
N
N


Just let me move to Hawaii nwith my dog and end my life on a beach with a Pina Colada in my hand.

Given that I could have married almost anyone but chose to “marry for love” (thanks mom), I would probably go back and just marry better. I quite like my kids and my life…it’s the husband who gets on my nerves.
So for me, it goes:

F
Y
N
Y

Interesting that in the fantasy in your mind, you could have married almost anyone. And yet, women actually trying to find suitable partners in the real world find it an incredibly challenging experience. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your husband is who you deserve and very likely the best you could have done.

Nope. I was hot, Ivy educated, interesting and successful in a male-dominated industry, surrounded by similarly educated and driven men. I had all kinds of crazy propositions, including a retired 30-something who sold his company for over $150 mill who took me on a crazy exclusive date for a weekend asking me to procreate with him for money…lots of it. Because of my superior genes. Not making this up. His words were, there are many smart women out there, and many pretty ones, but very few who are the whole package, and I want the mother of my kids to be that. Obviously an extreme example and one I never considered (maybe I should have?), but there were many normal, fun, successful men who wanted to date me. I could have married almost anyone.

Good for you and look how bitter you made the men with your comment!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of these women who say that they knew how to pick a good husband who won’t cheat or divorce and be a good busband over time, is there a test that is developed to gauge the men early on? Divorce rates are high and so this test would be valuable knowledge to be able to pass on to others so that they can determine whether to be a SAHM or not. Otherwise I don’t see how losing your financial independence is the right move.

Divorce rates are not high for college educated people.

If 30% is not high, I don't know what to tell you. Zero incentives for a woman not to work unless husband is really reach and guarantees her retirement, basically

Divorce rate by degree:
Bachelor’s- 14 divorces per 1k
Master’s - 12.5

https://divorce.com/blog/divorce-statistics/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of these women who say that they knew how to pick a good husband who won’t cheat or divorce and be a good busband over time, is there a test that is developed to gauge the men early on? Divorce rates are high and so this test would be valuable knowledge to be able to pass on to others so that they can determine whether to be a SAHM or not. Otherwise I don’t see how losing your financial independence is the right move.

Divorce rates are not high for college educated people.

If 30% is not high, I don't know what to tell you. Zero incentives for a woman not to work unless husband is really reach and guarantees her retirement, basically

Divorce rate by degree:
Bachelor’s- 14 divorces per 1k
Master’s - 12.5

https://divorce.com/blog/divorce-statistics/

12-14% risk of poverty in middle and old age for a woman who chose to be SAHM is extremely high risk. If I had this percentage of losses in my business I wouldn't be able to conduct it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of these women who say that they knew how to pick a good husband who won’t cheat or divorce and be a good busband over time, is there a test that is developed to gauge the men early on? Divorce rates are high and so this test would be valuable knowledge to be able to pass on to others so that they can determine whether to be a SAHM or not. Otherwise I don’t see how losing your financial independence is the right move.

Divorce rates are not high for college educated people.

If 30% is not high, I don't know what to tell you. Zero incentives for a woman not to work unless husband is really reach and guarantees her retirement, basically

It’s not 30% for white UMC women with college degrees who married for the first time after the age of 27 and has kids in her 30s. It’s incredibly low if you have graduate degrees.

I grew up in an affluent area and I’d estimate the divorce rate was maybe 5%. I’m now in my 40s with kids and the only people I know who got divorced married young out of college and got divorced before having kids.

According to statistics, I only had a 5% chance of getting divorced. I’m divorced. Many people can’t afford to divorce which is why they don’t do it. The marriage was terrible and we did everything right according to statistics, but we still are divorced. And better off personally.

[Anonymous]

Marriage with children is very, very hard when both parents work full-time. If the wife also makes more money, it is almost impossible. Childcare is extremely demanding, and most men do not truly understand the vast amount of labor required to meet the needs of growing children. Many women can deal with those demands if their DHs provide enough income for them to stay at home or they can work part-time, but for women who work full-time (especially if they make the same or more than their DHs) the result is a second shift that breeds resentment. Men respond to that resentment with frustration or even less help and the cycle becomes toxic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marriage with children is very, very hard when both parents work full-time. If the wife also makes more money, it is almost impossible. Childcare is extremely demanding, and most men do not truly understand the vast amount of labor required to meet the needs of growing children. Many women can deal with those demands if their DHs provide enough income for them to stay at home or they can work part-time, but for women who work full-time (especially if they make the same or more than their DHs) the result is a second shift that breeds resentment. Men respond to that resentment with frustration or even less help and the cycle becomes toxic.

Yeah. Fundamentally most men are extremely selfish and that just doesnt make for happy partnerships

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

You dont know what women dream of. Most young women I know (I am also a young woman) dream of being rich and financially successful. They do dream of having a handsome, actual SOULMATE, not settling for an ugly man and making it work as so many women have had to do.

Read the "how would you live your life differently" thread. The majority of the women said if they had a second go round they would stay single and childless.

Women dont dream of the things you think we do.

[Anonymous]

^also, having a hot surgeon bang you once is just fine with many women provided you have a hot, successful son. (Just hot being the most important criteria). Many women would prefer that rather than putting up with a dumpy looking, pudgy, 5'7 man who still expects to be treated like a king, day in and day out. That's why women are choosing differently now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage with children is very, very hard when both parents work full-time. If the wife also makes more money, it is almost impossible. Childcare is extremely demanding, and most men do not truly understand the vast amount of labor required to meet the needs of growing children. Many women can deal with those demands if their DHs provide enough income for them to stay at home or they can work part-time, but for women who work full-time (especially if they make the same or more than their DHs) the result is a second shift that breeds resentment. Men respond to that resentment with frustration or even less help and the cycle becomes toxic.

Yeah. Fundamentally most men are extremely selfish and that just doesnt make for happy partnerships

Stop it. Casually slandering billions of people is pretty lazy and low class.

[Anonymous]

This thread is a dumpster fire.