Marriage is a horrible deal for women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marriage should be abolished like slavery.

Because marriage is slavery right? Am I right?

Modern feminists in a nutshell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage should be abolished like slavery.

Because marriage is slavery right? Am I right?

Modern feminists in a nutshell.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

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

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.

Sole or primary. My point was that 41% of women are either supporting their children OR supporting their children AND another adult, who is statistically unlikely to be contributing in the household at the level of his higher-earning partner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/05/02/housework-divide-working-parents/
Why on earth would someone sign up for that? Who thinks that’s a good deal other than the doubly-freeloading male?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sole or primary. My point was that 41% of women are either supporting their children OR supporting their children AND another adult, who is statistically unlikely to be contributing in the household at the level of his higher-earning partner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/05/02/housework-divide-working-parents/
Why on earth would someone sign up for that? Who thinks that’s a good deal other than the doubly-freeloading male?

And you are deliberately misrepresenting those statistics. The bulk of those 41 percent are women receiving assistance but you represent them as boss ladies taking care of useless husbands. Just to denigrate marriage. It's quite sad really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sole or primary. My point was that 41% of women are either supporting their children OR supporting their children AND another adult, who is statistically unlikely to be contributing in the household at the level of his higher-earning partner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/05/02/housework-divide-working-parents/
Why on earth would someone sign up for that? Who thinks that’s a good deal other than the doubly-freeloading male?

And you are deliberately misrepresenting those statistics. The bulk of those 41 percent are women receiving assistance but you represent them as boss ladies taking care of useless husbands. Just to denigrate marriage. It's quite sad really.

Because their former partner is dodging child support.

[Anonymous]

My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sole or primary. My point was that 41% of women are either supporting their children OR supporting their children AND another adult, who is statistically unlikely to be contributing in the household at the level of his higher-earning partner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/05/02/housework-divide-working-parents/
Why on earth would someone sign up for that? Who thinks that’s a good deal other than the doubly-freeloading male?

And you are deliberately misrepresenting those statistics. The bulk of those 41 percent are women receiving assistance but you represent them as boss ladies taking care of useless husbands. Just to denigrate marriage. It's quite sad really.

The ones who are married— which you claim is good for women, right?— are supporting their husbands. They are also doing the bulk of the housework. So tell me about how this is a good deal for the wives?

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, OP. I always wondered, if women are supposed to the the weaker sex, why are they doing the majority of the work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

Sounds like you chose poorly or that he was the best option you had available at the time you wanted to get married and have children. Why would we draw any conclusions about marriage from someone who is, admittedly, bad at choosing a spouse or was willing to compromise on quality because of limited options?

[Anonymous]

I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

Sounds like you chose poorly or that he was the best option you had available at the time you wanted to get married and have children. Why would we draw any conclusions about marriage from someone who is, admittedly, bad at choosing a spouse or was willing to compromise on quality because of limited options?

Are you the same poster all upset that lower-quality men are being described as mediocre and women are being warned to have higher standards? If so could you please pick a lane?

[Anonymous]

My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

This post is awful.

You are not one of the positives in your DH's life. Why should he bust a gut to be one in yours?

Everyone I know had more fun with their spouse when they were dating because they did not have the pressures inherent in raising a family.

You treat the father of your children as having the same value as an Uber driver and wonder why you are not having more fun.

You do not need to worry about remarrying. Your ego should keep you company if your DH was ever lucky enough to find someone who would treat him well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

So horrific. Posters like you make me glad I'll never marry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

So horrific. Posters like you make me glad I'll never marry.

He's the absentee partner and parent and you're calling her horrific? She's being honest about a reality in so many marriages. What's horrific is you think she should carry the majority weight and still be adoring of her partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

So horrific. Posters like you make me glad I'll never marry.

He's the absentee partner and parent and you're calling her horrific? She's being honest about a reality in so many marriages. What's horrific is you think she should carry the majority weight and still be adoring of her partner.

The misogyny always comes out in these threads by the end…

Women shouldn’t have standards…but if you’re in a bad marriage you chose badly.

Women should be grateful to be married at all and not point out the realities of these situations…but OMG CAT LADIES.

The theme is— they hate women.