Most young men are single - most young women are not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single motherhood has exploded.

This is...not a good thing.

It’s great. Women are tired of men not being good partners who actually help out around the house.

Yikes...have you seen the outcomes for kids that come from single mother households? They're horrible. Even worse than kids from single father households.

What is your alternative?

Idk...maybe a nuclear family?

An overwhelming number of women clearly disagree. It should be telling that they’d rather raise kids alone than with today’s men. Women have spoken. You cannot force us to marry.

Society will enjoy your trainwreck kids. You go girl!

Society will have to adapt. The nuclear family is dead and isn’t coming back. Accept that.

Don't complain when that "adaptation" hits your front door. So short sighted and selfish lol.

There is nothing you can do about it.

Don't kid yourself. There is always something to be done.

Hope your trolling has been fun, girl.

So enough with the generalities. What’s your plan? We’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single motherhood has exploded.

This is...not a good thing.

It’s great. Women are tired of men not being good partners who actually help out around the house.

Yikes...have you seen the outcomes for kids that come from single mother households? They're horrible. Even worse than kids from single father households.

What is your alternative?

Idk...maybe a nuclear family?

An overwhelming number of women clearly disagree. It should be telling that they’d rather raise kids alone than with today’s men. Women have spoken. You cannot force us to marry.

Society will enjoy your trainwreck kids. You go girl!

Society will have to adapt. The nuclear family is dead and isn’t coming back. Accept that.

Don't complain when that "adaptation" hits your front door. So short sighted and selfish lol.

There is nothing you can do about it.

Don't kid yourself. There is always something to be done.

Hope your trolling has been fun, girl.

State-mandated marriages? Banning divorce?

Hi Gilead

We seem to be going down the banning abortion and birth control route.

Gotta keep women barefoot, pregnant and dependent on their husbands. Goal is to cripple their their ability to compete in the workplace so men can dominate the higher paying jobs and keep power. Keep them in abusive relationships.

Did your husband abuse you by telling you to turn off Real Housewives and pay attention to the kids?

Shoo, troll. The adults are talking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Men (and women) have more than two options. These types of reductive arguments are unhelpful.

So name one. And it can't be "make women slaves again".

Someone upthread suggested delayed school entry for boys. That's one possibility. Encourage boys to socialize more. Haven't seen any others.

We have, as a society, focused on girls for the past couple decades. Maybe we could focus on boys for the next couple. Or just focus on children.

So, parenting. Cool. Get to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not convinced that somehow schools, or social media or video games are the culprit. Or that men have become significantly less social, educated or "desirable" over time (probably the opposite). But in terms of the mating game, the acute economic pressure that was on women e.g. in 1950, to find a husband is probably close to gone today (and the social pressure has correspondingly abated as well). So if 30% of men are attractive mates, 40% average, and 30% subpar, and this has remained steady over time, there is really no reason women today would date the bottom 30% or even 50%, whereas 40-50 years ago they would have no other feasible option, and 20-30 years ago the social pressure would have still been fairly intense.

I'm not sure you could unwind this dynamic now or why we would even want to.

The shifting role of men means they need to become relevant, which they are, but they’ve seemed to have lost their way. Men need to see dating and marriage as a partnership and not the traditional way marriage has played out.

Right but then men, at least as a class, actually have to improve. If previously, all the bottom 30% had to offer was a paycheck or basic physical protection to get a mate, obviously that is not necessarily going to cut it anymore. So these guys have to become more pro-social, egalitarian, educated, whatever--which sure, would be great, but seems a bigger endeavor than just cutting video game time or changing some company's recruiting strategy.

All men have to be above average if they want a partner.

All women are not above average. Why do men need to be?

Because women want a man who is better educated and earns more than they do while also doing 50% of everything else.

I’m a woman who wants that. If I can’t find it, I just won’t date or marry. And?

And ... good luck with that, sincerely. On an individual level, people should do what they want. There is nothing wrong with your aspirations. But, if enough women have similar aspirations, there will be some societal downsides that we'll have to cope with one way or another.

Eh, there are societal downsides to women having no options, too.

Fewer people in relationships they don’t want is better for everyone, including society.

Society is seeing the downsides. Increases in mass shootings, the overdose epidemic that killed 100,000 people last year, etc.

Women generally aren't the ones killing themselves and others because they're alone. Maybe they're not getting the fairy tale they were sold as kids, but they're managing.
The hard truth is that men seem to need women, or seem to think they need women, in order to function. They also seem to want women to be a desperate underclass so they'll all have one.
Well, we aren't going backwards. Of course life was easier for men when women had no choice but to live with them. Life was also easier for a select group of people when the majority of other people had ho human rights. But we're better than that now. And society has evolved.
So men have two options. They can work on being the kind of men women want to date/f--k/marry. Or they can complain, drop out of society, complain, and harm themselves and others.
That's it. That's how it is.

Men (and women) have more than two options. These types of reductive arguments are unhelpful.

So name one. And it can't be "make women slaves again".

C’mon. Be better than that.

Truth hurts. Shrug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is bad for a society's long run stability to have large numbers of single, underemployed, bitter men. America has been heading in this direction for a decade or so. It's not healthy that liberals scoff at studies like this with platitudes about how women are better off without men, that they're losers, etc. If we keep telling young men that they are violent, toxic sub-humans, they will continue to fail, and we will eventually have very bad outcomes. Look at Syria, Egypt, Italy for models. It is in the best interest of democracy in the United States to have *equality* of the sexes (not a war--which women have been winning for a while), and for most men to be in healthy, stable relationships. I don't know why this is controversial.

A big war will fix this very quickly. And one is coming.
These things sort themselves out.

Enemy soldiers aren't traditionally kind to women they encounter.

Women live in fear of rape and murder every day.

The fear becomes very well-founded in a war zone.

Are you always this absurdly melodramatic, or just on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want women to revert back to property instead of doing any work themselves. That's it.

+1,000. And it’s not happening however much they scream, stomp and demand and they are Big Mad about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want women to revert back to property instead of doing any work themselves. That's it.

True of many men. Look, dudes in America (esp white men) had a good run being at the top of the food chain, even if they didn't do anything to earn it other that being a dude. this is no longer the case. As the first PP noted, we (women) had to put up with a lot and fight tooth and nail to get those things. If we can do it, the poor men can figure out how to deal with it.

As for the "mass shootings, overdoses. . . . lousy woman mangers" etc. . . . it says alot about the poster who said it that they some how attribute to women. F you.

Only 100 years ago, I couldn't vote. 40 years ago, I couldn't get credit in my own name. Not only can I do these things now, but much more. I'm not property

White men were the toughest bastards on the planet for awhile. They got soft.

White men still run the world. It just so happens that a bunch of them are now doing poorly as well. Apex fallacy is rampant in these discussions.

I think I saw you mention “apex fallacy” in a prior post. From context I think I know what that means —- maybe attributing qualities of the top of the group to the group as a whole. Is that more or less the idea?

Yeah, people should be mad at this tiny subset of men amassing more wealth and power and the expense of everyone. Instead they would rather bludgeon all men and treat the issues with no nuance at all.

You think it’s a “tiny subset?” I’m dying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.

Since when is a helpful, respectful, decent man "effeminate"?

You're not fooling anyone. That list was a bunch of code words for act more like a woman. That is not the answer. We don't need a weird, dystopian sexless androgyzoid society. No thanks.

You are 100% wrong. I don’t know whether you are a man or a woman but the majority of American women are desperate for male partners who are more empathetic, more supportive, more helpful, less angry. All the anecdotal and statistical evidence bears that our. We are exhausted doing all the emotional work in the family. The largest problem these young men have is that they have not been given the tools to succeed in today’s workplace or in Romantic relationshios with today’s young women. We’ve failed them by raising them for a world that doesn’t exist any more. I’m not saying androgynous or “feminine”—my son plays sports, camps with Boy Scouts, and is into robotics. My brothers are very traditional men who ALSO know how to cook, are phenomnenal with babies and kids, are empathetic to others, and generally know how to communicate and cooperate. It’s not an impossibility.

No, it really does not. It's called revealed preferences for a reason. Men are not (completely) stupid. If they knew doing all of that would get them more steady, reliable sex or a good companion, they would do it. It doesn't.

And this is the problem — men thinking this is the purpose of marriage. Guess what? Most women care faaaaaar less about sex than you nut-crazed oversized 14-year-old boys and if they do want it, they don’t have to get married to get it when they want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you heard what is expected of men nowadays? My BIL who just graduated college shared with us- the rule of 6. They must have a 6" p, make 6 digits, and be at least 6 feet tall. If you don't meet all three of these girls literally turned down guys. These were kids (girls) in college.

I say this as a parent of both boys and girls, girls have been the shining star for the last few decades, it's time to reshift attention to boys merely to pull them out of this rut we've created.

Not going to happen. Raise better men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend that is mid thirties, great personality, great job, cute, athletic. I don’t think she is particularly picky when it comes to looks or income but definitely wants a guy who is nice, treats her well, reasonably smart, and would share housework. (Her dad and brother check all those boxes.). She is the cool aunt and I think she’s fine with being single rather than compromising on what she wants. And she won’t do dating apps. I’d love it if she met someone great but I can’t really blame her for picking cool aunt status over a guy that’s going to treat her badly or expect her to be his mom.

They'd rather stay home with Whiskers and watch Netflix on a Friday night.

I’m so embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I know tons and tons of single women in the DC area between say 25 and 40. Almost all of them are educated and have their shit together. A number of them are VERY beautiful and fit with active lifestyles. The problem is that most of them are VERY VERY picky. This sort of fault-finding quality goes beyond the usual stuff we see on this site. The thing is, a LOT of the professional women in DC earn much more than the guys found in the local pool if single men. Income disparity is a huge problem. Also, a sort of cockiness has evolved within the large community of professional women with regard to statue, education, and income level. A lot of these single ladies are used to being in charge as well, especially in the workplace, yet most of them make terrible bosses. Then again, not all of them are blessed on the looks scale.

So here is another angle. You have a single woman with a grad degree from a top tier school. She has all the reps and certs, plus the income to go along with it. Probably owns her own place and has the unofficial title of "cool aunt" to her nieces. She probably takes vacations to luxury locales and drives a nice car. That said, she's probably a 7. In her mind, she's a 10 because of all the extra stuff (house, job, income whatever).

To single guys in the DC area, she's still a 7 with all that other baggage. And that 7 will become a 6 soon...and then a 5.

Do you really want to be the "cool aunt" at 45?

As a 40 year old man dating in DC, I completely agree with everything you said. Women in DC get pickier the older they get while their looks diminish. It's total madness. And they wonder why men prefer to date younger?

So they should what? Settle for the mediocre looking schlub incels?

You sound like an angry 40+ year old cat lady.

And you sound like one of the incels.

And before you bother being predictable on an anonymous message board and shrieking “GOTCHA! I’m a woman” — yeah, sure you are — or incel sympathizer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young women are dating older men. Older women are leaving the dating market entirely.

This is an interesting way to say that older women are less attractive than younger women and therefore cannot compete for the attention of the older men they would normally choose to be dating.

Your reading comprehension is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the cold hard truth ladies. Unless you were born rich you got to pick a Horse and ride it.

Meaning for example my wife had a friend very pretty but literally worked electric company, Dad a retired cop, grew up shoebox cape on the tracks.

She tried at 24 to land a millionaire. She was peak beauty. Blonde, skinny and full. Guess what the rich older guys not looking for broke blondes for third tier colleges.

So she found a 26 year old good looking guy also broke, but he was starting out as a broker on Wall Street. She bet on his successes. She got on that horse and rode it all to a two million dollar home and a new BMW. She has not worked in 25 years.

Meanwhile that same guy once loaded was not looking for her.

My wife did the same married me in 1998 I was making 55k and she was making 55k. But I had MBA and talk and good looking. She saw potential. By 2007 I was making 400k a year. She also was good looking grew up tiny cape blue collar parents.

Pick your horse and ride then ladies. Lot easier to marry a rich guy before they are rich

Why do I need a horse at all if I can make money on my own? You seem to be implying that in every case the woman wants to put her own dreams on hold in order to live vicariously through someone else. Those days are over. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, as Betty Friedan once said.

And yet, many women spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find a partner or lamenting the fact that they’re not able to find a partner.

And yet, despite your anecdata, 64 percent of young women are in relationships, compared to 34 percent of men of similar age.

No

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most young men are single

Good for them. Unlike women, men don't base their entire self worth on whether the opposite sex deems them worthy of "a relationship."

Women have been told for..I dunno, millennia?...that our worth relies on whether or not the opposite sex deems us worthy of a relationship, so it's really no surprise that most women feel that way. However, this is changing, and the people who seem to have a hard time imagining the change are men (since they have been told the same thing; that their opinion of a woman is a reflection of a woman's worth). Some men these day really cannot fathom the idea that a women might not give a flying f*** what men think.

Honestly it's so hilarious to watch this shift from the sidelines.

The funniest part is that it is usually cat ladies on nextdoor or listservs that think their opinions matter the most. There's a reason the term K**rens were invented.

What a grossly over inflated sense of self worth you have.

Every time you type any form of “cat ladies,” your own insecurity is on full, glorious display and I’m here for it. Hilarious.

(happily married woman)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article doesn't seem to make sense. They are saying that 60% of men are single and 30% of women are single. So doesn't that mean that the men are dating multiple women?

Did you read the thread? Even the first page?

Nope. Too busy darlin.

You weren’t too busy to mark a stupid reply that’s already been covered repeatedly for 20 pages, darlin.