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

[Anonymous]

Why didn’t wsj profile sec sorority or Utah women or wealthy Catholics to get a broader mix?

Seems like they went out of their way to select women who are caricatures of a specific milieu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t wsj profile sec sorority or Utah women or wealthy Catholics to get a broader mix?

Seems like they went out of their way to select women who are caricatures of a specific milieu

I don’t understand your point…they referenced many national statistics regarding marriage rates. They didn’t extrapolate based on their 5 anecdotal stories.

BTW…wealthy Catholics aren’t different from the national stats as the vast majority of Catholics aren’t conservative or very observant Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t wsj profile sec sorority or Utah women or wealthy Catholics to get a broader mix?

Seems like they went out of their way to select women who are caricatures of a specific milieu

I don’t understand your point…they referenced many national statistics regarding marriage rates. They didn’t extrapolate based on their 5 anecdotal stories.

BTW…wealthy Catholics aren’t different from the national stats as the vast majority of Catholics aren’t conservative or very observant Catholics.

Many Utah women leave their faith primarily due to patriarchy, so many of my LDS friends’ life goal was to avoid becoming their mothers.

[Anonymous]

nP.
Their point was women & men get married and have kids in those circles - Jewish, Catholic, the south/SEC schools, and I would argue the Midwest big 10 schools and Asian local circles too.
All of those communities are not “afraid” to get married and even start a family in their mid 20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:nP.
Their point was women & men get married and have kids in those circles - Jewish, Catholic, the south/SEC schools, and I would argue the Midwest big 10 schools and Asian local circles too.
All of those communities are not “afraid” to get married and even start a family in their mid 20s.

The story is about the broader demographic trend.

[Anonymous]

Hispanics have lots of kids. And maybe marry.

MoCo reported says 4.26 children per childbearing Hispanic woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think they're dumb - but I had a number of law school classmates who simply didn't anticipate the lazy that would appear in their seemingly ambitious hard-working lawyer husbands who suddenly became helpless in the face of household workload and childcare workload and developed a sudden need to spend hours in the bathroom with the door locked after marriage and kids.

I'm in my 50s so I'm talking about women who grew up in the 70s and 80s and naturally assumed that their college+ educated husbands who grew up in the same era understood that women expected a more equitable division of labor in the family. The shock and disappointment when they realized their husbands expected them to be working moms and also shoulder much more than half the load at home both physical and mental has worn many of them down into very different people and driven a fair number to divorce.

Men need to wise up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, it's easy to not be resentful when you have access to wealth and the autonomy to spend it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t wsj profile sec sorority or Utah women or wealthy Catholics to get a broader mix?

Seems like they went out of their way to select women who are caricatures of a specific milieu

I don’t understand your point…they referenced many national statistics regarding marriage rates. They didn’t extrapolate based on their 5 anecdotal stories.

BTW…wealthy Catholics aren’t different from the national stats as the vast majority of Catholics aren’t conservative or very observant Catholics.

This^. Using one broad stroke to paint a large group is so illogical. I'm Muslim and instead of feeling offended, I feel deeply amused when conspiracy theorist Islamophobes take two billion plus people as a monolith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, it's easy to not be resentful when you have access to wealth and the autonomy to spend it.

It's easy for some but not for others as a lot of life is about perspective. Some people see the silver lining but others find ways to be resentful no matter what life offers to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You don’t think young women grow up in this dynamic? Seeing their working mom slave away while dad does $hit all sitting on the couch? Gmafb. You are not giving women enough credit here. Are you a man?

I’m a woman of a young adult daughter. She and girlfriends absolutely want marriage but they have high standards. They want smart, ambitious, college educated. Guys like that have no problem finding women but there are more women on that category than men.

ie, women have stepped up their game, but men have not. It's why we have incels.

As a mom also of sons - how do we fix this?

Incels are just guys who can’t get laid. About a third are on the spectrum. More than half are left of center politically. About 45 percent are not white. Most are not narcissists or psychopaths (if they were they could figure out how to charm their way to sex) but are instead perpetual victims.

Confusing and conflating these sad sacks with red pill or Andrew Tate types is just like when adults who don’t know better freaked out about gangsta rap or video games.

What's the equivalent of incel for women?

[Anonymous]

I feel like anyone feeling superior to anyone else needs a therapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, it's easy to not be resentful when you have access to wealth and the autonomy to spend it.

It's easy for some but not for others as a lot of life is about perspective. Some people see the silver lining but others find ways to be resentful no matter what life offers to them.

Ok? And? Put it on a greeting card, I guess. The previous PP is the one with the money and autonomy to spend it. She's not resentful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:nP.
Their point was women & men get married and have kids in those circles - Jewish, Catholic, the south/SEC schools, and I would argue the Midwest big 10 schools and Asian local circles too.
All of those communities are not “afraid” to get married and even start a family in their mid 20s.

Asian are getting married much later, too, and some not at all.

-Asian American

Median age by demographic:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/372080/median-age-of-us-americans-at-their-first-wedding-by-race-and-origin/

Average age of people getting married by state: total average is 32 yrs of age.

https://www.theknot.com/content/average-age-of-marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You don’t think young women grow up in this dynamic? Seeing their working mom slave away while dad does $hit all sitting on the couch? Gmafb. You are not giving women enough credit here. Are you a man?

I’m a woman of a young adult daughter. She and girlfriends absolutely want marriage but they have high standards. They want smart, ambitious, college educated. Guys like that have no problem finding women but there are more women on that category than men.

ie, women have stepped up their game, but men have not. It's why we have incels.

As a mom also of sons - how do we fix this?

Incels are just guys who can’t get laid. About a third are on the spectrum. More than half are left of center politically. About 45 percent are not white. Most are not narcissists or psychopaths (if they were they could figure out how to charm their way to sex) but are instead perpetual victims.

Confusing and conflating these sad sacks with red pill or Andrew Tate types is just like when adults who don’t know better freaked out about gangsta rap or video games.

What's the equivalent of incel for women?

childless cat lady? Lesbian?