Marriage is a horrible deal for women

[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.

You missed the math. It is better for her to raise a child by herself than with a mediocre man. All that brings her is another person to support (41% of mothers are already sole or primary breadwinners) and a higher likelihood of abuse to herself or her children.

Marriage and children with a genuinely great man— a top 10% man— is definitely the best option. But no man is better than a mediocre one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess where you’re sitting in the equation determines what you consider dystopian. That a woman should be encouraged to have children with an unsuitable man strikes me as dystopian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would rather raise a child by myself.

[Anonymous]

Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

[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.

You missed the math. It is better for her to raise a child by herself than with a mediocre man. All that brings her is another person to support (41% of mothers are already sole or primary breadwinners) and a higher likelihood of abuse to herself or her children.

Marriage and children with a genuinely great man— a top 10% man— is definitely the best option. But no man is better than a mediocre one.

Hear that guys? Of the woman makes more money than you you are a mediocre man. And if you're not in the top 10 percent of earners...you are mediocre.

No wonder modern relationships are so dysfunctional.

And how many of the 41 percent of mothers who are sole breadwinners are in those circumstances due to their own poor decisions of getting pregnant outside of marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

A young woman in their early twenties may think they don't want to have kids.

My experience is that sometime in their late twenties or early thirties most women start feeling differently about children. And unsurprisingly it's at those ages where women's fertility takes a nosedive. Biology finds a way.

Some women may never want to have kids. But most women? You are delusional. If you poll women in their late teens or early twenties you may get a large number, but by their mid thirties? 4-5 percent tops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would rather raise a child by myself.

As a parent I can safely say no one's who's raised a child would ever utter that statement unless their partner was abhorrent.

This statement largely confirms your ignorance on child raising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

A young woman in their early twenties may think they don't want to have kids.

My experience is that sometime in their late twenties or early thirties most women start feeling differently about children. And unsurprisingly it's at those ages where women's fertility takes a nosedive. Biology finds a way.

Some women may never want to have kids. But most women? You are delusional. If you poll women in their late teens or early twenties you may get a large number, but by their mid thirties? 4-5 percent tops.

Very salient point. The further from my twenties I get, the more formerly childfree women I know pop up out of the woodwork with children in tow. As a sidebar, I’m so glad it’s generally standard practice to deny elective sterilization to young women. Or, it was anyway…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

A young woman in their early twenties may think they don't want to have kids.

My experience is that sometime in their late twenties or early thirties most women start feeling differently about children. And unsurprisingly it's at those ages where women's fertility takes a nosedive. Biology finds a way.

Some women may never want to have kids. But most women? You are delusional. If you poll women in their late teens or early twenties you may get a large number, but by their mid thirties? 4-5 percent tops.

Nearly half of women in the US under the age of 45 are childless, as of January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

A young woman in their early twenties may think they don't want to have kids.

My experience is that sometime in their late twenties or early thirties most women start feeling differently about children. And unsurprisingly it's at those ages where women's fertility takes a nosedive. Biology finds a way.

Some women may never want to have kids. But most women? You are delusional. If you poll women in their late teens or early twenties you may get a large number, but by their mid thirties? 4-5 percent tops.

Very salient point. The further from my twenties I get, the more formerly childfree women I know pop up out of the woodwork with children in tow. As a sidebar, I’m so glad it’s generally standard practice to deny elective sterilization to young women. Or, it was anyway…..

Can’t have young women having control over their bodies, right?

[Anonymous]

Young folks today need to understand that there is absolutely no pressure to marry or have kids unless they 1000% want to. They should in no way, shape or form feel obligated to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

A young woman in their early twenties may think they don't want to have kids.

My experience is that sometime in their late twenties or early thirties most women start feeling differently about children. And unsurprisingly it's at those ages where women's fertility takes a nosedive. Biology finds a way.

Some women may never want to have kids. But most women? You are delusional. If you poll women in their late teens or early twenties you may get a large number, but by their mid thirties? 4-5 percent tops.

Nearly half of women in the US under the age of 45 are childless, as of January.

They are childless, but not by choice.

You got a large contingent of single women who are holding out for a guy who meets their ridiculous standards, and will continue holding out well into crazy cat lady territory.

You got a large contingent of women who married but married late and are no longer capable of having children. A huge proportion of women who attempt to have kids by their mid thirties can no longer conceive.

You got a small number of women who at that age still want to remain childless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I would rather raise a child by myself.

As a parent I can safely say no one's who's raised a child would ever utter that statement unless their partner was abhorrent.

This statement largely confirms your ignorance on child raising.

Completely depends on how wealthy the parent is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

A young woman in their early twenties may think they don't want to have kids.

My experience is that sometime in their late twenties or early thirties most women start feeling differently about children. And unsurprisingly it's at those ages where women's fertility takes a nosedive. Biology finds a way.

Some women may never want to have kids. But most women? You are delusional. If you poll women in their late teens or early twenties you may get a large number, but by their mid thirties? 4-5 percent tops.

Nearly half of women in the US under the age of 45 are childless, as of January.

They are childless, but not by choice.

You got a large contingent of single women who are holding out for a guy who meets their ridiculous standards, and will continue holding out well into crazy cat lady territory.

You got a large contingent of women who married but married late and are no longer capable of having children. A huge proportion of women who attempt to have kids by their mid thirties can no longer conceive.

You got a small number of women who at that age still want to remain childless.

I, and many others, would rather be single & childfree (yes, it’s by choice) than settle for mediocrity. Not sure why that’s so hard for you to understand. I own an SFH in a great neighborhood, have a great flexible job & social circle. If I want to have a kid eventually, I will. Zero desire to add a partner to the mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incels cannot fathom that most women have no desire to marry or have kids.

A young woman in their early twenties may think they don't want to have kids.

My experience is that sometime in their late twenties or early thirties most women start feeling differently about children. And unsurprisingly it's at those ages where women's fertility takes a nosedive. Biology finds a way.

Some women may never want to have kids. But most women? You are delusional. If you poll women in their late teens or early twenties you may get a large number, but by their mid thirties? 4-5 percent tops.

Nearly half of women in the US under the age of 45 are childless, as of January.

They are childless, but not by choice.

You got a large contingent of single women who are holding out for a guy who meets their ridiculous standards, and will continue holding out well into crazy cat lady territory.

You got a large contingent of women who married but married late and are no longer capable of having children. A huge proportion of women who attempt to have kids by their mid thirties can no longer conceive.

You got a small number of women who at that age still want to remain childless.

This is textbook incel talk.