Anonymous wrote: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.
That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.
Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….
**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!
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?
Even the ones who are married likely work fewer hours than their husbands. Even when both spouses work full time husbands on average work 8-10 hours a week more than their spouses. So if wives on average do a few extra hours of housework than the husband a week, all that does is average out the hours both have worked.
The scenario you built in your head is so out of the norm it's a caricature but somehow that's still your main argument.
Read the article my friend. It is about women who out-earn their husbands. Meaning, no, they probably do not work fewer hours because they’re making more money. Studies show women married to unemployed husbands continue to do more housework.
Anonymous wrote: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.
That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.
Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….
**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!
I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.
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?
Even the ones who are married likely work fewer hours than their husbands. Even when both spouses work full time husbands on average work 8-10 hours a week more than their spouses. So if wives on average do a few extra hours of housework than the husband a week, all that does is average out the hours both have worked.
The scenario you built in your head is so out of the norm it's a caricature but somehow that's still your main argument.
Read the article my friend. It is about women who out-earn their husbands. Meaning, no, they probably do not work fewer hours because they’re making more money. Studies show women married to unemployed husbands continue to do more housework.
I know the article talks a lot about women who out earn their husbands. But the statistic itself - the 41 percent - that is dominated by unmarried (either never married or divorced) receiving assistance. They make the most money in their household by default.
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?
Even the ones who are married likely work fewer hours than their husbands. Even when both spouses work full time husbands on average work 8-10 hours a week more than their spouses. So if wives on average do a few extra hours of housework than the husband a week, all that does is average out the hours both have worked.
The scenario you built in your head is so out of the norm it's a caricature but somehow that's still your main argument.
Read the article my friend. It is about women who out-earn their husbands. Meaning, no, they probably do not work fewer hours because they’re making more money. Studies show women married to unemployed husbands continue to do more housework.
I know the article talks a lot about women who out earn their husbands. But the statistic itself - the 41 percent - that is dominated by unmarried (either never married or divorced) receiving assistance. They make the most money in their household by default.
So, please tell me how a marriage in which she earns more money, does more housework, and bears 100% of the risk for childbearing is not a bad deal for the woman?
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?
Even the ones who are married likely work fewer hours than their husbands. Even when both spouses work full time husbands on average work 8-10 hours a week more than their spouses. So if wives on average do a few extra hours of housework than the husband a week, all that does is average out the hours both have worked.
The scenario you built in your head is so out of the norm it's a caricature but somehow that's still your main argument.
Read the article my friend. It is about women who out-earn their husbands. Meaning, no, they probably do not work fewer hours because they’re making more money. Studies show women married to unemployed husbands continue to do more housework.
I know the article talks a lot about women who out earn their husbands. But the statistic itself - the 41 percent - that is dominated by unmarried (either never married or divorced) receiving assistance. They make the most money in their household by default.
Households of divorced or never-married women don’t have an imbalance of household chores.
Also, the average monthly child support payment in the U.S. is $430. I wouldn’t put too much stock in that “receiving assistance” comment.
Anonymous wrote: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.
That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.
Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….
**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!
I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.
It doesn't matter how many resources you may bring to bear for child raising. Your child statistically will be worse off by being raised by a single mom than by a mother and father. But by all means keep encouraging anti-social behavior that hurts children.
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?
Even the ones who are married likely work fewer hours than their husbands. Even when both spouses work full time husbands on average work 8-10 hours a week more than their spouses. So if wives on average do a few extra hours of housework than the husband a week, all that does is average out the hours both have worked.
The scenario you built in your head is so out of the norm it's a caricature but somehow that's still your main argument.
Read the article my friend. It is about women who out-earn their husbands. Meaning, no, they probably do not work fewer hours because they’re making more money. Studies show women married to unemployed husbands continue to do more housework.
I know the article talks a lot about women who out earn their husbands. But the statistic itself - the 41 percent - that is dominated by unmarried (either never married or divorced) receiving assistance. They make the most money in their household by default.
So, please tell me how a marriage in which she earns more money, does more housework, and bears 100% of the risk for childbearing is not a bad deal for the woman?
Does the husband contribute? Does he work long hours (statistically husbands work far longer hours than their wives, even when both work full time)?
You folks are acting as though as soon as the woman out earns a man, he becomes dead weight. It's a sad attitude to have frankly - on par with husbands divorcing wives after they grow old and no longer have that youthful beauty.
But if you mean the husband is a complete dead weight and provides no help whatsoever - then that is a caricature that's not a sound basis for discussion.
It is a horrible deal if you think you can earn big$$$$$$$ and shouldn't be bothered by husband, home and kids and its a horrible deal if you think he should earn big$$$$$$$ and you should live like Melania Trump.
Marriage is a good deal if both of you are true partners and divide duties according to your strengths and mutual happiness.
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?
Even the ones who are married likely work fewer hours than their husbands. Even when both spouses work full time husbands on average work 8-10 hours a week more than their spouses. So if wives on average do a few extra hours of housework than the husband a week, all that does is average out the hours both have worked.
The scenario you built in your head is so out of the norm it's a caricature but somehow that's still your main argument.
Read the article my friend. It is about women who out-earn their husbands. Meaning, no, they probably do not work fewer hours because they’re making more money. Studies show women married to unemployed husbands continue to do more housework.
I know the article talks a lot about women who out earn their husbands. But the statistic itself - the 41 percent - that is dominated by unmarried (either never married or divorced) receiving assistance. They make the most money in their household by default.
So, please tell me how a marriage in which she earns more money, does more housework, and bears 100% of the risk for childbearing is not a bad deal for the woman?
Does the husband contribute? Does he work long hours (statistically husbands work far longer hours than their wives, even when both work full time)?
You folks are acting as though as soon as the woman out earns a man, he becomes dead weight. It's a sad attitude to have frankly - on par with husbands divorcing wives after they grow old and no longer have that youthful beauty.
But if you mean the husband is a complete dead weight and provides no help whatsoever - then that is a caricature that's not a sound basis for discussion.
So your theory is that if a man works at all, but contributes less money, less household engagement, and again no risk in childbirth, partnership with him is a good deal for a woman? Personally I have— and think all women should have— higher standards than that.
Women do most of the unpaid and unnoticed domestic labor in the home. They use their body to create babies and then do most of the childcare.
If the husband isn’t rich, what does he bring to the table?
You are damaged.
What did your dad bring to the table? Was it only money?
The relationship you write about above is transactional at best. If you believe this, you should also believe a rich husband should be able to replace a wife with a younger and prettier model at any time.
Anonymous wrote: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.
That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.
Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….
**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!
I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.
It doesn't matter how many resources you may bring to bear for child raising. Your child statistically will be worse off by being raised by a single mom than by a mother and father. But by all means keep encouraging anti-social behavior that hurts children.
Anonymous wrote: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.
That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.
Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….
**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!
I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.
It doesn't matter how many resources you may bring to bear for child raising. Your child statistically will be worse off by being raised by a single mom than by a mother and father. But by all means keep encouraging anti-social behavior that hurts children.
Of course it does. A lot. A kid born to a wealthy single mother is going to do 1000% better in every way than a kid born to a drug addict mom & dad in Kentucky.
Anonymous wrote: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.
That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.
Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….
**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!
It is unironically. Like, do you think women have ever enjoyed giving birth?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}