Marriage is a horrible deal for women

[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.

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?

You may have bodily autonomy, but Drs. also have a standard of care. You may want to be sterilized at 20, but any sane Dr. would reject that request. Similar to if you wished to have your body parts amputated, because you felt you were trans-abled. Or if you wanted to get your genitals mutilated - well - actually the Drs. have totally dropped the ball there.

[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.

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.

And you’re telling us this on what kind of forum?

[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.

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?

You may have bodily autonomy, but Drs. also have a standard of care. You may want to be sterilized at 20, but any sane Dr. would reject that request. Similar to if you wished to have your body parts amputated, because you felt you were trans-abled. Or if you wanted to get your genitals mutilated - well - actually the Drs. have totally dropped the ball there.

But you’re fine with vasectomies.

[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.

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.

You feel that way now. It's an almost guarantee you will feel differently when you're older.

Case and point: Candace Bushnell

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7295837/Sex-City-writer-admits-regrets-choosing-career-having-children.html#:~:text=But%20Sex%20and%20the%20City%20creator%20Candace%20Bushnell%2C,York%20who%20famously%20chooses%20her%20independence%20over%20motherhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

You may have bodily autonomy, but Drs. also have a standard of care. You may want to be sterilized at 20, but any sane Dr. would reject that request. Similar to if you wished to have your body parts amputated, because you felt you were trans-abled. Or if you wanted to get your genitals mutilated - well - actually the Drs. have totally dropped the ball there.

But you’re fine with vasectomies.

Pretty sure Drs. most Drs. reject vasectomies from people in their prime years and who don't have families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You feel that way now. It's an almost guarantee you will feel differently when you're older.

Case and point: Candace Bushnell

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7295837/Sex-City-writer-admits-regrets-choosing-career-having-children.html#:~:text=But%20Sex%20and%20the%20City%20creator%20Candace%20Bushnell%2C,York%20who%20famously%20chooses%20her%20independence%20over%20motherhood.

I’m just fine, thank you very much. And I see you playing into the trope that women can’t think for ourselves or make decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

You may have bodily autonomy, but Drs. also have a standard of care. You may want to be sterilized at 20, but any sane Dr. would reject that request. Similar to if you wished to have your body parts amputated, because you felt you were trans-abled. Or if you wanted to get your genitals mutilated - well - actually the Drs. have totally dropped the ball there.

But you’re fine with vasectomies.

Pretty sure Drs. most Drs. reject vasectomies from people in their prime years and who don't have families.

That’s not going to work post-Roe, so there are lists circulating of doctors located throughout the US who will perform tubal ligations & vasectomies on young adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You feel that way now. It's an almost guarantee you will feel differently when you're older.

Case and point: Candace Bushnell

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7295837/Sex-City-writer-admits-regrets-choosing-career-having-children.html#:~:text=But%20Sex%20and%20the%20City%20creator%20Candace%20Bushnell%2C,York%20who%20famously%20chooses%20her%20independence%20over%20motherhood.

I’m just fine, thank you very much. And I see you playing into the trope that women can’t think for ourselves or make decisions.

I just love it how these strong DCUM women, when presented with a different view, start spouting "I am being oppressed"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You feel that way now. It's an almost guarantee you will feel differently when you're older.

Case and point: Candace Bushnell

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7295837/Sex-City-writer-admits-regrets-choosing-career-having-children.html#:~:text=But%20Sex%20and%20the%20City%20creator%20Candace%20Bushnell%2C,York%20who%20famously%20chooses%20her%20independence%20over%20motherhood.

I’m just fine, thank you very much. And I see you playing into the trope that women can’t think for ourselves or make decisions.

I just love it how these strong DCUM women, when presented with a different view, start spouting "I am being oppressed"

A misogynistic one, you mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You feel that way now. It's an almost guarantee you will feel differently when you're older.

Case and point: Candace Bushnell

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7295837/Sex-City-writer-admits-regrets-choosing-career-having-children.html#:~:text=But%20Sex%20and%20the%20City%20creator%20Candace%20Bushnell%2C,York%20who%20famously%20chooses%20her%20independence%20over%20motherhood.

I’m just fine, thank you very much. And I see you playing into the trope that women can’t think for ourselves or make decisions.

I just love it how these strong DCUM women, when presented with a different view, start spouting "I am being oppressed"

A misogynistic one, you mean.

What was misogynist about linking to an article about a woman talking about her life experience? Just because the view doesn't conform to feminist dogma doesn't make it misogynistic.

[Anonymous]

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?

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?

Ah yes all those many unplanned pregnancies which take place without male participation and are therefore the woman’s poor decision! I forgot about those.

I did not define a top 10% guy as a top 10% earner, that was all you. My definition would include financial security but also emotional maturity and intellect— and that’s what I married. He also happened to be well within the top 10% for income. I don’t wish less than that for any other woman and I certainly don’t wish the risk of financial abuse, of physical abuse, infidelity and just regular misogyny on any woman by suggesting she settle for less.

[Anonymous]

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?

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?

Ah yes all those many unplanned pregnancies which take place without male participation and are therefore the woman’s poor decision! I forgot about those.

I did not define a top 10% guy as a top 10% earner, that was all you. My definition would include financial security but also emotional maturity and intellect— and that’s what I married. He also happened to be well within the top 10% for income. I don’t wish less than that for any other woman and I certainly don’t wish the risk of financial abuse, of physical abuse, infidelity and just regular misogyny on any woman by suggesting she settle for less.

Some PP, perhaps you, raised the issue of the 41% of women who are sole breadwinners as some gotcha about how women don't need men. The comment about irresponsible single mothers was in response to that. That it takes two to tango in bed goes without saying, but it's besides this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the husband is rich he’ll want his kids to have a SAHM and control you (the SAHM) with money.

They also want to control your interactions with your blood family. Usually, the husband has a controlling father who wants his son to report everything to him while the DIL keeps telling H not to disclose family plans.

[Anonymous]

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?

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?

Only if you say that’s a “poor decision.” Many women choose to be single mothers, including via adoption & donor sperm.

[Anonymous]

Marriage should be abolished like slavery.