NYT: "The Trouble with Men"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looked up this lady online. She’s ok looking but not that great sexy to compete with plentiful other women in NYC. Men have choices there and NYC attracts the best looking, the wealthiest and most successful women

That lawyer from her article can marry a stunning 40 yo law partner and he knows that which is why he won’t commit to the author

A woman should always date men who feel like they can’t do any better then there will be commitment

There are literal super models who got cheated on. Having an ugly partner doesn’t guarantee commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are heterosexual and have trouble being in a relationship with the opposite sex, then YOU need to change. Part of being in a heterosexual marriage is learning to get along and live with someone who is different than you.

Yes. This is all one needs to know. No need to blame the opposite sex or society or social media or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Spot on. I do actually believe we have a sociological problem in this country - women on the rise and wanting equal partners, men on decline and wanting the 50s back. But this article was not that at all. She was ridiculous.

Agreed. We are in a time of cultural shift to be sure, but this article is not hitting on some important part of it.

This is how I feel as well. D*** is low value, and abundant. It’s so low value and abundant that men have to pay women for it 😂

[Men have to pay women for dick? What?]

if you want to live your life w/o a man it’s easier than ever.

And yet somehow despite not needing the bicycle, the fish are unhappier than ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men will return when masculinity is not attacked, diminished and outright demonized. Until then, men will come last in the home, but remain first to their young, attractive secretaries at work.

Couldn’t resist.

No one has attacked, diminished or outright demonized masculinity. Whatever are you prattling on about.

I am a man and actually agree. If anything women love everything about a masculine men. The kind of masculine man that some fringe elements in our society talk about is a made up he simply doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may be that the men that most women want to date are unavailable. My foster son is a 5'6" man who works as a bank teller and has an associates degree. He has a normal apartment that he shares with a roommate. He is a great guy who is putting himself out there and open to a relationship, but not having success.

Basically all the non 6-6-6 men are slighted by women chasing Mr Big, and are bitter about it. And the cost of housing.

Right, women have a choice and choose the same few men. With birth control, women can enjoy their freedom without getting pregnant, so they get the best of both worlds.

I'm sure the 5'6" man is a great guy, but women evolved not to be attracted to him. Without society's past restraints on women, it will be hard for a guy like him to find success in the dating market. This applies to most men, which is why you see so many exiting the market.

Stop with this myth. Short men get boo'd up every day all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Spot on. I do actually believe we have a sociological problem in this country - women on the rise and wanting equal partners, men on decline and wanting the 50s back. But this article was not that at all. She was ridiculous.

This, thank you. The essay was dumb and grating -- this woman keeps making stupid relationship choices and is blaming it on "men" instead of lookin inward. It's also hyper-specific to the dating scene in NYC or similar cities at a certain age. There is almost nothing universal about it.

I do think it would be interesting to talk more about gender roles in heterosexual marriages and how what people are raised to expect and want doesn't match up. I also think sometimes people want conflicting things. Like men often want a woman who will be an equal earner, but then also expect her to do the lion's share of child rearing. Women, on the other hand, will say they want a man who is a true partner at home, but then won't let their husband's take the lead on domestic matters or expect him to be an equal partner while also making twice as much. It can just be very unrealistic. And economic pressures in the US make these conflicts worse than in other countries, because without much paid parental leave and escalating housing and college costs, the pressure is really on for families to maximize their earnings, which doesn't leave anyone with much time or energy for parenting and taking care of the home, which are essential tasks.

That would be an interesting first-person essay. This lady is just click bait.

+1 really good points about gender roles and expectations. I (female) remember feeling so judgmental as an ambitious undergrad when I looked back at SAHMs from my childhood town. But now I’m older and understand better that maintaining the day-to-day aspects of a home involves a LOT of work!! Honestly it’s a miracle that any heterosexual marriages survive all the child rearing and leaning-into-work years. There’s just too much to get done and most people are hopefully trying their best.

There are also things that are impossible to fully understand until you’re in the thick of things. Most men and women do not grasp - until it happens - how different their lived realities will become after childbirth. Requires constant communication and patience to bridge those realities.

I think the best quote I read about this was something like “it can’t actually be 50/50; but ideally both people are always giving 100%.” <-and even that sounds exhausting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman I do not relate to this article at all. There’s another article I could write with the same title but it’s quite different and focuses on the wanting (an action by women).

The wanting here does not seem to be for relationships but rather just a consistent fork?

Yeah, this woman doesn't really seem interested in creating a life with another person. She sounds like a classic narcissist who views other people as a means to getting her needs met and nothing more.

Like, sorry for the cliche, but marriage (or any longterm partnership) is about compromise. That's actually what makes it special. In a successful longterm relationship, you both learn to let go of your ego for the sake of the partnership. This is very powerful. It is not possible to make this happen on a short-term basis (it's the longevity of the commitment that makes a marriage what it is) and it won't be successful if one or both partners always puts themselves first.

But then, who would take relationship advice from a divorced mom who can't even figure out if she wants to be monogamous or not? There's just no point.

Men are very, very infrequently expected to make compromises in marriage. They (statistically, not anecdotally) leave when their spouses become ill, are excused for cheating if their wife isn’t conventionally attractive or gains weight, and are praised like heroes for taking on the most basic household tasks and certainly are never expected to take any career hits in pursuit of family goals. So your advice while likely accurate rarely has to do with men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman I do not relate to this article at all. There’s another article I could write with the same title but it’s quite different and focuses on the wanting (an action by women).

The wanting here does not seem to be for relationships but rather just a consistent fork?

Yeah, this woman doesn't really seem interested in creating a life with another person. She sounds like a classic narcissist who views other people as a means to getting her needs met and nothing more.

Like, sorry for the cliche, but marriage (or any longterm partnership) is about compromise. That's actually what makes it special. In a successful longterm relationship, you both learn to let go of your ego for the sake of the partnership. This is very powerful. It is not possible to make this happen on a short-term basis (it's the longevity of the commitment that makes a marriage what it is) and it won't be successful if one or both partners always puts themselves first.

But then, who would take relationship advice from a divorced mom who can't even figure out if she wants to be monogamous or not? There's just no point.

Men are very, very infrequently expected to make compromises in marriage. They (statistically, not anecdotally) leave when their spouses become ill, are excused for cheating if their wife isn’t conventionally attractive or gains weight, and are praised like heroes for taking on the most basic household tasks and certainly are never expected to take any career hits in pursuit of family goals. So your advice while likely accurate rarely has to do with men.

The main study that showed that was retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

[Anonymous]

The one woman he went on several dates with that I met was cute but not gorgeous. I haven't met other women he is interested in, so I don't know. It may be making it more difficult that he prefers someone with either no kids or one younger kid.

As the saying goes, "beggars can't be choosers".

How old is he? If he's like over 30, he has a high chance of dating a woman who has kids.

He is 27. It probably doesn't help that he is somewhat introverted. I think if he were more outgoing, he would have better success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Spot on. I do actually believe we have a sociological problem in this country - women on the rise and wanting equal partners, men on decline and wanting the 50s back. But this article was not that at all. She was ridiculous.

This, thank you. The essay was dumb and grating -- this woman keeps making stupid relationship choices and is blaming it on "men" instead of lookin inward. It's also hyper-specific to the dating scene in NYC or similar cities at a certain age. There is almost nothing universal about it.

I do think it would be interesting to talk more about gender roles in heterosexual marriages and how what people are raised to expect and want doesn't match up. I also think sometimes people want conflicting things. Like men often want a woman who will be an equal earner, but then also expect her to do the lion's share of child rearing. Women, on the other hand, will say they want a man who is a true partner at home, but then won't let their husband's take the lead on domestic matters or expect him to be an equal partner while also making twice as much. It can just be very unrealistic. And economic pressures in the US make these conflicts worse than in other countries, because without much paid parental leave and escalating housing and college costs, the pressure is really on for families to maximize their earnings, which doesn't leave anyone with much time or energy for parenting and taking care of the home, which are essential tasks.

That would be an interesting first-person essay. This lady is just click bait.

+1 really good points about gender roles and expectations. I (female) remember feeling so judgmental as an ambitious undergrad when I looked back at SAHMs from my childhood town. But now I’m older and understand better that maintaining the day-to-day aspects of a home involves a LOT of work!! Honestly it’s a miracle that any heterosexual marriages survive all the child rearing and leaning-into-work years. There’s just too much to get done and most people are hopefully trying their best.

There are also things that are impossible to fully understand until you’re in the thick of things. Most men and women do not grasp - until it happens - how different their lived realities will become after childbirth. Requires constant communication and patience to bridge those realities.

I think the best quote I read about this was something like “it can’t actually be 50/50; but ideally both people are always giving 100%.” <-and even that sounds exhausting!

PP here and yes. I'm 10 years into a good marriage, with kids. We both work, but not the same amount. We both do housework and provide childcare, but not the same amount. It works out because we both work at it and give each other the benefit of the doubt, but even with that, there are resentments and feelings of unfairness at times. It's hard! And I think I'm in one of the more best case scenarios for a middle class couple. It seems like people with more money and family support are better off because they don't have as much of the resource crunch, but in some cases the extra money and support doesn't matter because of other demands (we have friends where one person is a super high earner but their job is insanely demanding with constant travel and late nights -- the money doesn't fix how hard that is on a family).

I also have single friends in their 40s and I wouldn't say dating is easy at that age but has it ever been? I do think it's pretty different because most people dating in their mid- to late-40s are not looking to start a family. I also think people are less inclined to totally combine finances at that age in many situations. So it's just different. Even if you find a long term partner or get married, it's going to look very different than someone dating in their 20s or 30s. But that will always be true. Once you take away the procreation and financial efficiency reasons for marriage, you are left with pure compatibility and desire. It's not better or worse, just different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

As women gain economic power, they no longer need to settle for sexually unattractive partners just to have kids. Marriage is hard, living with someone you don’t desire, enduring sex every week, birthing kids with him. Are you f…g joking ? Do you yourself want to sleep with a woman you don’t desire just to have a “family”? Most marriages are unhappy for that very reason -people “settling”.

Most women would rather stay single or have kids on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

In my experience, this is not the universal dynamic. For some people, yes. But I know men you want relationships more than they just want sex, and I know women who want the reverse. After divorce, in particular, this seems to be true -- most divorced men I know just want a steady girlfriend or a new wife. Most divorced women I know have very little interest in relationships and just want sex on the regular. These preferences are even stronger if there are kids -- divorced men want a new wife to come help with the kids, divorced women would MUCH rather parent solo and are reluctant to bring another man into the dynamic with their kids.

Your scenario is true for unmarried, childless people in their 20s, but it's not universal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women have become so awful that men have lost interest. NYT woman argues that the problem is men, wonders how to cure their indifference. The obvious solution (stop being awful) is of course never considered.

Men have become so lazy that women find them lacking, which is why there are so many incels. The obvious solution is for men to stop being lazy and up their game like women have, but of course, that is not considered.

See how that goes?

BTW, I've been married for 20 years. I would not want my DD to settle. My DS will have 3 degrees in a STEM field and will be earning good money. He also knows how to cook, do his own laundry, and clean his bathroom (DD oth is a slob; we're still trying to teach her).