61% of single women in America are not looking to get into a new relationship compared to 38% of men

[Anonymous]

You really need to get out of the DMV wealth bubble if you think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Would her situation have been any different had she been married and had kids? The only difference is that she might be living with her kids instead of nieces/ nephews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Would her situation have been any different had she been married and had kids? The only difference is that she might be living with her kids instead of nieces/ nephews.

I'd also ask whether her situation would be different if she had access to equal wages and opportunities. If she's in her early 70s now, she spent part of her adult life unable to open a checking account without a male's consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Well yes to the first part.

Prior to around the 60/70s women were literally dependent on their fathers or husbands for survival. Additionally, there was no effective way to control how many children they birthed.

Now women have the ability to support themselves without a husband and avoid birthing dependents to support.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many simply prefer spinsterhood over the companionship men.

I happen to be a happily married conservative mother, but it’s not a mystery why this is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Yet you don't think the same of single men? My wife's uncle never married and is in his 60s now. He's always had a solid job but I imagine we'll be helping to take care of him as he ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Single men are far more likely than single women to be looking for a relationship or dates – 61% vs. 38%. This gender gap is especially apparent among older singles"

Interesting development. What do we think is causing this?

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/08/PSDT_08.20.20.dating-relationships.full_.report.pdf

I could see that being the case here n the east coast amongst black and white women, but not with other demographics and not with the rest of the country.

pew is left biased so Unf their surveys don’t get out of their bubbles.

The survey is actually nationally representative. It might not fit your own experiences, but it's statistically reliable. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/methodology-38-2/

Unless they’re sending it out to synagogue, temple, tribal, Catholic, other christian churches, families or women and not just leftist urban enclaves they’re missing 50%+ of the population.

I didn’t receive a Pew survey ever, have you? Surveys are surveys. You send them to your bubbles or friends or network. More of the same.

This is an absolutely bonkers thing to think. Is that actually how you think statistically representative surveys are conducted?

The ATP is not conducted in church. It's a randomized sample of Americans drawn from postal records.

"In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based recruitment. Invitations were sent to a random, address-based sample (ABS) of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. In each household, the adult with the next birthday was asked to go online to complete a survey, at the end of which they were invited to join the panel. For a random half-sample of invitations, households without internet access were instructed to return a postcard. These households were contacted by telephone and sent a tablet if they agreed to participate. A total of 9,396 were invited to join the panel, and 8,778 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 18,720 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 10,764 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

They will make it exactly as the men with no families of their own are making it. As it happens, most of the women of my parents generation in our family never married and are childless. They all had decent jobs - teachers, librarians, engineers, a pharmacist, and they are/ were doing ok income wise in retirement. No one is/ was working in their 70s unless they want to. And because they didn’t have any delusions counting on the “family”, they had arranged their lives to simplify the logistics - moving to apartments, establishing lots of connections, etc. Some were able to stay home until the very end or close to it, some ended up in nursing homes - and they were ok with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Well yes to the first part.

Prior to around the 60/70s women were literally dependent on their fathers or husbands for survival. Additionally, there was no effective way to control how many children they birthed.

Now women have the ability to support themselves without a husband and avoid birthing dependents to support.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many simply prefer spinsterhood over the companionship men.

I happen to be a happily married conservative mother, but it’s not a mystery why this is happening.

This is affluent suburban white woman-centric history. Poor ethnic whites and WOC prior to the 60s have always worked without being dependents. And in their old age, they overwhelmingly relied on their children, or at least the bosom of a sibling’s family and children for hearth and home (and not merely economic consideration alone).

Spinsterhood by choice implies dependency on the other adults in your family of origin doing what you yourself refused to do—which as families continue to shrink, is an unsustainable solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Well yes to the first part.

Prior to around the 60/70s women were literally dependent on their fathers or husbands for survival. Additionally, there was no effective way to control how many children they birthed.

Now women have the ability to support themselves without a husband and avoid birthing dependents to support.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many simply prefer spinsterhood over the companionship men.

I happen to be a happily married conservative mother, but it’s not a mystery why this is happening.

This is affluent suburban white woman-centric history. Poor ethnic whites and WOC prior to the 60s have always worked without being dependents. And in their old age, they overwhelmingly relied on their children, or at least the bosom of a sibling’s family and children for hearth and home (and not merely economic consideration alone).

Spinsterhood by choice implies dependency on the other adults in your family of origin doing what you yourself refused to do—which as families continue to shrink, is an unsustainable solution.

False. Poor white, black and POC women were equally dependent on men, if not more so. Just because they worked doesn’t mean they were not dependent on men.

Spinsterhood does not imply dependence on family members. It is simply a question of resources. No different than a man without family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

Right, that’s the age when the cool aunts become the cool SMBC whose nieces and nephews free babysit and who is in a place in her career to have a full time
Nanny.

It's not really a step up to be a SMBC. Nobody is envious of that person, doing it all alone, with a fatherless child. A nanny is not a replacement for a second parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Well yes to the first part.

Prior to around the 60/70s women were literally dependent on their fathers or husbands for survival. Additionally, there was no effective way to control how many children they birthed.

Now women have the ability to support themselves without a husband and avoid birthing dependents to support.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many simply prefer spinsterhood over the companionship men.

I happen to be a happily married conservative mother, but it’s not a mystery why this is happening.

I’m a single woman who worked for the govt for 30 years.

I have $1.5 M in tsp, healthcare and a pension.

We don’t need people to support us thanks to feminists who got us some equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

Right, that’s the age when the cool aunts become the cool SMBC whose nieces and nephews free babysit and who is in a place in her career to have a full time
Nanny.

It's not really a step up to be a SMBC. Nobody is envious of that person, doing it all alone, with a fatherless child. A nanny is not a replacement for a second parent.

Nannie’s are often better.

Women can have and raise babies without men, you make it sound like it’s impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

Well yes to the first part.

Prior to around the 60/70s women were literally dependent on their fathers or husbands for survival. Additionally, there was no effective way to control how many children they birthed.

Now women have the ability to support themselves without a husband and avoid birthing dependents to support.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many simply prefer spinsterhood over the companionship men.

I happen to be a happily married conservative mother, but it’s not a mystery why this is happening.

This is affluent suburban white woman-centric history. Poor ethnic whites and WOC prior to the 60s have always worked without being dependents. And in their old age, they overwhelmingly relied on their children, or at least the bosom of a sibling’s family and children for hearth and home (and not merely economic consideration alone).

Spinsterhood by choice implies dependency on the other adults in your family of origin doing what you yourself refused to do—which as families continue to shrink, is an unsustainable solution.

Quit using the word "spinster." For F's sake. It's outdated and offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism.

It will be very interesting to see the younger generations of women age single, and alone, with no families of their own. Will they have enough saved for retirement? How will they make it? I have an older female relative -- single, childless, early 70s -- living in another relative's garage because they lost their job. Can't find another one that covers the bills, now health is failing. Without the help of nieces and nephews, she might be on the streets.

I would be loaded if I never married and had kids. I would have millions more saved than I already do. Marriage + kids has not been a good financial investment. It has also drawn me away from friendships because, between work, marriage, and kids, I have no time for my own friendships and hobbies. I love my kids and don't regret them, but there is no doubt I would be much wealthier if I had remained single.

+1, you can't compare women currently in their 70s to women currently in their 30s/40s. Women today have more education, expect to work from 22-60, and contribute to retirement accounts during that time. It's not like it was in our mothers' generation when women could not get the kind of jobs that would offer financial security. Now you can. You don't have to be a lawyer or a doctor, either. You can be a dental hygienist, and executive assistant, a teacher, a nurse -- any of a host of traditionally female jobs, and if you don't have kids and don't make any dumb financial mistakes, you can be well positioned to never have to rely on anyone else financially in your life.

I'm also married with kids and no regrets -- I love being a mom and I love my DH. But it's the most expensive life choice I've ever made and I know I'd be in a much better place financially if I were childless. Marrying my husband enabled me to buy a home a little sooner than I would have otherwise, but that's about it. I outlearned him every of the 8 years we were together before we had kids, and then I got PPD and mommy tracked and now he makes more than me but less than I would have made if I'd stayed in my old job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

Right, that’s the age when the cool aunts become the cool SMBC whose nieces and nephews free babysit and who is in a place in her career to have a full time
Nanny.

It's not really a step up to be a SMBC. Nobody is envious of that person, doing it all alone, with a fatherless child. A nanny is not a replacement for a second parent.

Most SMBCs I know have a parent or sibling who performs the role of "second parent," in addition to a nanny. I am sometimes envious of them, because they get to be moms without having to deal with the downsides of marriage and parenting with a man, but still have the emotional support AND extra hands for childcare.

I don't have the kind of family who would support me in that way though, so it's not something I would have considered for myself.