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: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).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

I’m beginning to think the main reason for this thread is for you to announce your marital fortunes over and over again. You say it with too much gusto and too eagerly.

This is my first about my spouse. Guess DCUM has more than one lucky woman who wants other women to be happy.

[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: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).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

We have never yet had a society where access for marriage for men was determined as a meritocracy based on an assessment of their suitability as a parent, partner and provider. As others have pointed out we have historically used marriage as a way to ensure low-quality men have access to women since long term singlehood meant no children and likely destitution for women. Now women can— and should— demand more. Society will benefit when men have to step up and be equal partners and parents and not just (when women are lucky) a paycheck.

Historically most marriages were a union of equals since love was not a factor and parents made decisions without the influence of hormones. People married in their own class or had strong redeeming values.

[Anonymous]

It is so deeply sad to me that so many women here view getting a man to marry them as their crowning achievement. Surely you must have done more things in your life? Oh wait…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, are you harpies really arguing that all college-educated women should hold out for top-3% men? Like, do you not see the problem there? Maybe you can get your toddler to explain some toddler-level math so you understand.

The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.

Perfect now all you have to do is give women lobotomies so they want what you tell them to want.

The largest growing family type in the US are woman-headed households with children. Revealed preferences seem to matter more than what you think women want.

[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: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).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

We have never yet had a society where access for marriage for men was determined as a meritocracy based on an assessment of their suitability as a parent, partner and provider. As others have pointed out we have historically used marriage as a way to ensure low-quality men have access to women since long term singlehood meant no children and likely destitution for women. Now women can— and should— demand more. Society will benefit when men have to step up and be equal partners and parents and not just (when women are lucky) a paycheck.

Historically most marriages were a union of equals since love was not a factor and parents made decisions without the influence of hormones. People married in their own class or had strong redeeming values.

Equals is a weird term for a pairing when one party has rights and the other doesn’t, one party can rape the other at will, etc. Social equals sure but that’s where the equality ended.

[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: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).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

We have never yet had a society where access for marriage for men was determined as a meritocracy based on an assessment of their suitability as a parent, partner and provider. As others have pointed out we have historically used marriage as a way to ensure low-quality men have access to women since long term singlehood meant no children and likely destitution for women. Now women can— and should— demand more. Society will benefit when men have to step up and be equal partners and parents and not just (when women are lucky) a paycheck.

Historically most marriages were a union of equals since love was not a factor and parents made decisions without the influence of hormones. People married in their own class or had strong redeeming values.

Equals is a weird term for a pairing when one party has rights and the other doesn’t, one party can rape the other at will, etc. Social equals sure but that’s where the equality ended.

Within the limits of society at that time, they were evenly matched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, are you harpies really arguing that all college-educated women should hold out for top-3% men? Like, do you not see the problem there? Maybe you can get your toddler to explain some toddler-level math so you understand.

The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.

Perfect now all you have to do is give women lobotomies so they want what you tell them to want.

The largest growing family type in the US are woman-headed households with children. Revealed preferences seem to matter more than what you think women want.

You don’t know if this is happening by preference. And “fast growing” means nothing in macro terms if it’s from 0.02 to 1%. We’d have to look at actual numbers.

[Anonymous]

The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.

Your problem is not in misunderstanding math, it is misunderstanding statistics. For example, if you use a population of 100 men and 100 women who are actively seeking a mate of the opposite sex, we can assume that the 100 women would rank the men from 1st to 100th in terms of suitability for marriage. The men would do the same.

It is likely that the top 10 ranked women would pair with one of the top 10 ranked men. If you are ranked the 90th women out of 100, you are very unlikely to get a top ranked man. But the only people that might care if the 90th ranked woman dropped out and remained unmarried are the men who ranked at or below her (from 90 to 100.) You are advancing the idea that all (or most) women have a chance with the "top 10% of men" which is not true.

With this fact in mind, explain how the fact only 45% of Americans are married eliminates the lower quartiles. In the 55% of Americans you say are not married, you have material groups of people who cannot marry (e.g., they are too young to marry). Also, you have groups that wish to marry but cannot (e.g., the ratio of women to men where both are over 80 years old is about 7 to 1 so even if many 80+ year old women wish to marry (or remarry) they do not have the option.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.

Your problem is not in misunderstanding math, it is misunderstanding statistics. For example, if you use a population of 100 men and 100 women who are actively seeking a mate of the opposite sex, we can assume that the 100 women would rank the men from 1st to 100th in terms of suitability for marriage. The men would do the same.

It is likely that the top 10 ranked women would pair with one of the top 10 ranked men. If you are ranked the 90th women out of 100, you are very unlikely to get a top ranked man. But the only people that might care if the 90th ranked woman dropped out and remained unmarried are the men who ranked at or below her (from 90 to 100.) You are advancing the idea that all (or most) women have a chance with the "top 10% of men" which is not true.

With this fact in mind, explain how the fact only 45% of Americans are married eliminates the lower quartiles. In the 55% of Americans you say are not married, you have material groups of people who cannot marry (e.g., they are too young to marry). Also, you have groups that wish to marry but cannot (e.g., the ratio of women to men where both are over 80 years old is about 7 to 1 so even if many 80+ year old women wish to marry (or remarry) they do not have the option.)

To marry you are correct. To reproduce with you are incorrect. A 99/100 woman can still have the baby of a 6ft doctor who speaks four languages, either via a one night stand or a reputable sperm bank. If you look at the category of women who only want to “settle” in order to have kids, they can get the kids of a much higher “ranked” male and never have to deal with the problematic behavior of a lower ranked male.

[Anonymous]

To marry you are correct. To reproduce with you are incorrect. A 99/100 woman can still have the baby of a 6ft doctor who speaks four languages, either via a one night stand or a reputable sperm bank. If you look at the category of women who only want to “settle” in order to have kids, they can get the kids of a much higher “ranked” male and never have to deal with the problematic behavior of a lower ranked male.

Really? Why is the six-foot multilinguistic doctor going to have a one-night stand with the 99/100 woman? He is in the top 10% and could have anyone else. No, if he is looking for the one-night stand he will do much better. And he is very unlikely to make a "donation" to the 99/100 woman, even if she persuades him that he would not have to pay child support.

Next, let's turn to her making a "withdrawal" from the baby bank. She (our 99/100 woman) would need to have the money to afford both the insemination process and raising the kid alone with only her resources.

More likely, the 99/100 woman has the one-night stand with a 99/100 man to have a kid.

Your example is more likely to apply to a rich 99/100 man who wanted a kid. He could pay a birth mother, have the kid, and avoid the same problematic behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.

Your problem is not in misunderstanding math, it is misunderstanding statistics. For example, if you use a population of 100 men and 100 women who are actively seeking a mate of the opposite sex, we can assume that the 100 women would rank the men from 1st to 100th in terms of suitability for marriage. The men would do the same.

It is likely that the top 10 ranked women would pair with one of the top 10 ranked men. If you are ranked the 90th women out of 100, you are very unlikely to get a top ranked man. But the only people that might care if the 90th ranked woman dropped out and remained unmarried are the men who ranked at or below her (from 90 to 100.) You are advancing the idea that all (or most) women have a chance with the "top 10% of men" which is not true.

With this fact in mind, explain how the fact only 45% of Americans are married eliminates the lower quartiles. In the 55% of Americans you say are not married, you have material groups of people who cannot marry (e.g., they are too young to marry). Also, you have groups that wish to marry but cannot (e.g., the ratio of women to men where both are over 80 years old is about 7 to 1 so even if many 80+ year old women wish to marry (or remarry) they do not have the option.)

To marry you are correct. To reproduce with you are incorrect. A 99/100 woman can still have the baby of a 6ft doctor who speaks four languages, either via a one night stand or a reputable sperm bank. If you look at the category of women who only want to “settle” in order to have kids, they can get the kids of a much higher “ranked” male and never have to deal with the problematic behavior of a lower ranked male.

Most women would opt for a flawed but present husband over a one-night stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.

Your problem is not in misunderstanding math, it is misunderstanding statistics. For example, if you use a population of 100 men and 100 women who are actively seeking a mate of the opposite sex, we can assume that the 100 women would rank the men from 1st to 100th in terms of suitability for marriage. The men would do the same.

It is likely that the top 10 ranked women would pair with one of the top 10 ranked men. If you are ranked the 90th women out of 100, you are very unlikely to get a top ranked man. But the only people that might care if the 90th ranked woman dropped out and remained unmarried are the men who ranked at or below her (from 90 to 100.) You are advancing the idea that all (or most) women have a chance with the "top 10% of men" which is not true.

With this fact in mind, explain how the fact only 45% of Americans are married eliminates the lower quartiles. In the 55% of Americans you say are not married, you have material groups of people who cannot marry (e.g., they are too young to marry). Also, you have groups that wish to marry but cannot (e.g., the ratio of women to men where both are over 80 years old is about 7 to 1 so even if many 80+ year old women wish to marry (or remarry) they do not have the option.)

To marry you are correct. To reproduce with you are incorrect. A 99/100 woman can still have the baby of a 6ft doctor who speaks four languages, either via a one night stand or a reputable sperm bank. If you look at the category of women who only want to “settle” in order to have kids, they can get the kids of a much higher “ranked” male and never have to deal with the problematic behavior of a lower ranked male.

It is truly dystopian and indicative of how toxic modern feminism is that DCUM now earnestly argues that the best way to propagate the human race is through artificial insemination and one-night stands. Stunning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.

Your problem is not in misunderstanding math, it is misunderstanding statistics. For example, if you use a population of 100 men and 100 women who are actively seeking a mate of the opposite sex, we can assume that the 100 women would rank the men from 1st to 100th in terms of suitability for marriage. The men would do the same.

It is likely that the top 10 ranked women would pair with one of the top 10 ranked men. If you are ranked the 90th women out of 100, you are very unlikely to get a top ranked man. But the only people that might care if the 90th ranked woman dropped out and remained unmarried are the men who ranked at or below her (from 90 to 100.) You are advancing the idea that all (or most) women have a chance with the "top 10% of men" which is not true.

With this fact in mind, explain how the fact only 45% of Americans are married eliminates the lower quartiles. In the 55% of Americans you say are not married, you have material groups of people who cannot marry (e.g., they are too young to marry). Also, you have groups that wish to marry but cannot (e.g., the ratio of women to men where both are over 80 years old is about 7 to 1 so even if many 80+ year old women wish to marry (or remarry) they do not have the option.)

To marry you are correct. To reproduce with you are incorrect. A 99/100 woman can still have the baby of a 6ft doctor who speaks four languages, either via a one night stand or a reputable sperm bank. If you look at the category of women who only want to “settle” in order to have kids, they can get the kids of a much higher “ranked” male and never have to deal with the problematic behavior of a lower ranked male.

It is truly dystopian and indicative of how toxic modern feminism is that DCUM now earnestly argues that the best way to propagate the human race is through artificial insemination and one-night stands. Stunning.

It’s funny, it seems to me the best chance humanity has for avoiding a dystopia. The patriarchy and leaving men with the power and resources certainly hasn’t brought us to a utopia.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny, it seems to me the best chance humanity has for avoiding a dystopia. The patriarchy and leaving men with the power and resources certainly hasn’t brought us to a utopia.

Why? The post at 21:28 proves that things are as they always have been. To wit, the top 10% of women mate with the 10% of men (for the most part.)

Men and women determine who is in the top 10% in different ways. However, the bottom 10% of women are not going to magically have children with the top 10% of men.

They did not 10,000 years ago, and they are not now.

[Anonymous]

In normal non abuse/usury situations women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of a continuing relationship. If he is happy he will provide all resources he has available and they can each flourish.

Things change when the male has taken on more responsibilities and is now in a position where his obligations to everything on the periphery of that relationship take over, children, houses, businesses, health insurance, retirement planning, etc. at this point the female can withhold the things that cemented the agreement at its outset and because she is now part of his responsibility package she can pretty much ride free.
He married a fun-loving sweet woman that would have sex at the drop of a hat, she went out of her way please him and life was great. Add some years and insults and the shine doesn’t come back as brilliant as it used to but he is still using all of his resources to further the organization they built. She can continue to do less and less yet still reap the benefits of her early short investment when she gave so much of herself to the relationship.

If she can hold on for 20 years and give just enough to keep him placated she’ll have access to lifetime alimony and half or possibly more of everything he killed himself to build.

I know there are many women who don’t get the luxury of the situation I’ve outlined above and they have had a rough time. That rough time later in marriage is because they likely ignored a glaring psychological defect in themselves and the men they chose, marriage can be just as awful for men as it can be for women.