Marriage is a horrible deal for women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I mean I hate to let facts get in the way of a weird fantasy but most divorces are initiated by women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I mean I hate to let facts get in the way of a weird fantasy but most divorces are initiated by women.

This is about the beginning of a relationship, we’re all aware that 70% of divorces are initiated by women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like a hive of bitter divorced women.

Many women do just great with marriage! A loving husband who provides and cares for his wife and children. The freedom to work, or not work. Physical and intellectual satisfaction.

Try not being so miserable. Works wonders.

I’m early 20s and read this forum. A close relative just finalized her divorce after 22 years to her abusive exH. Thankfully she’s relatively young, in her 40s, but she’d been a SAHM for 20 years and is very concerned about how she’s going to support herself.

I’m also in my 20s, but thankfully I have a wealthy father and a trust. So technically I never have to work or rely on a husband. But I do like having a boyfriend and being told what to do, so I guess that’s a better setup for me than marriage. I think being raised in such a sheltered and controlling environment made me lack self-sufficiency and confidence. I don’t think I will even find a man who is wealthier than me lol. And I’m not giving them any of my assets.

My mother was a SAHM and really lazy tbh. We had nannies, house cleaners, cooks, and even a driver. I honestly don’t know what she did all day. She wouldn’t have been able to support herself if my dad left her. She didn’t come from a wealthy family and was significantly younger than my dad. Marriage doesn’t seem like a good deal for uneducated or poor SAHM. Like you destroy your body to have kids and are unemployed for year. How can u support yourself lol.

I guess in a way I rely on a man for my lifestyle though. Without my dad and inheritance I would have really struggled in life and wouldn’t be able to live my easy, carefree lifestyle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being a single mother who isn’t poor is the best.

This is my situation. Estranged from husband (he lives in another state and rarely visits kids, never calls them). Technically still married and I am a SAHM with plenty of resources. Of course I wish the kids had a dad in their lives but at least I don’t have to put up with him.

[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.

We get it, you're pissed than no woman has to put up with your sorry a** just because she wants to have kids in 2023.

[Anonymous]

This is my situation. Estranged from husband (he lives in another state and rarely visits kids, never calls them). Technically still married and I am a SAHM with plenty of resources. Of course I wish the kids had a dad in their lives but at least I don’t have to put up with him.

Do you date?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We get it, you're pissed than no woman has to put up with your sorry a** just because she wants to have kids in 2023.

Women have been indoctrinated to be misandrists and most don't even realize and keep repeating dystopian talking points without any awareness or examination.

Like OP complaining about marriage being a raw deal, with one of the complaints being having to get pregnant. No awareness that the main function of marriage is to procreate and raise children. And even wanting a family they complain about basic biological facts as a "raw deal". But it wouldn't be modern feminism without complaining about nature or reality itself.

[Anonymous]

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.

I recall seeing an analysis from dating sites showing that women rate 80% of males below average. Your comment reminds me of that. It shows such a skewed sense of reality but truth is no impediment to ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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…..

It's not marriage or men that is a crowning achievement. It's having a family that is a crowning achievement. Few men or women will ever achieve in their professions something as meaningful as raising children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Never mind that statistically the outcome for children raised by single mothers is far worse than those raised by a married couple. But by all means let's encourage anti-social behavior for the sake of some feminist sacred goat.

[Anonymous]

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?

If you think it would be better for a woman to raise a child by herself absent a father you are delusional. And even more delusional by ignoring all the statistics showing how children raised by single parents do far far worse than those raised by two parents.

[Anonymous]

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?

If you think it would be better for a woman to raise a child by herself absent a father you are delusional. And even more delusional by ignoring all the statistics showing how children raised by single parents do far far worse than those raised by two parents.

Only because that is the society that we have created.... Once we start supporting single mothers more those outcomes will improve drastically. Women and boys been punished for being single in the so of their children... That is changing

[Anonymous]

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?

If you think it would be better for a woman to raise a child by herself absent a father you are delusional. And even more delusional by ignoring all the statistics showing how children raised by single parents do far far worse than those raised by two parents.

Only because that is the society that we have created.... Once we start supporting single mothers more those outcomes will improve drastically. Women and boys been punished for being single in the so of their children... That is changing

My pie is the sky ideology leads to bad outcomes. This must mean my ideology was not fully implemented. We need more of it, not less!

[Anonymous]

I think the emphasis should be a on public policies that encourage/promote couples married and unmarried to stay together to raise the children. A societal recognition that in the long run that is best for the kids and the parents. But that also means that men have to stand up and be responsible and act like an adult. Help in errands and maintaining the house/apt. If I was doing all the child care and cleaning....I would be pissed too.

[Anonymous]

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?

If you think it would be better for a woman to raise a child by herself absent a father you are delusional. And even more delusional by ignoring all the statistics showing how children raised by single parents do far far worse than those raised by two parents.

Only because that is the society that we have created.... Once we start supporting single mothers more those outcomes will improve drastically. Women and boys been punished for being single in the so of their children... That is changing

Sure, we’ll just build a society that substitutes for a father…. Hard to take this seriously.