61% of single women in America are not looking to get into a new relationship compared to 38% of men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

[Anonymous]

Half of the people like to paint pretty pictures of single and divorced women while other half of happily married women, reality lies in between, both have failures and triumphs, just different ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

Right, that’s the age when the cool aunts become the cool SMBC whose nieces and nephews free babysit and who is in a place in her career to have a full time
Nanny.

It's not really a step up to be a SMBC. Nobody is envious of that person, doing it all alone, with a fatherless child. A nanny is not a replacement for a second parent.

Oh honey.

A ton of women with three kids (two babies and one husband) envy the independence and the freedom a wealthy single mother has. Go read more in this forum about how many people are staying because they can’t bear the thought of giving their kids up half the time.

The person no one envies is the woman married to a low-tier man.

Uh, no. Speak for yourself. I'd rather just be single and fabulous than be the sole, constant on duty, single plane.

And that’s fine— but the poster was bemoaning how women have “no families” as though women are constrained to having a child with a partner— they’re not and they’re frequently better off without one.

I wasn't that PP but I don't see the 40something woman deciding to just become SMBC as the answer to not being the 'cool aunt' anymore. There are lots of unenviable people out there. Those with the dud husband, this with the dud ex who rarely sees his kids, the SMBC trying to do it all alone..... none of these are ideal or enviable.

In your list only the SMBC has freedom. So she’s more enviable than the rest by a mile.

How is she free? When you have a kid you are no long free by any stretch. The ones I didn't mention have more free time: happily married with kids, happily married with no kids, and single and childless. SMBC has no freedom any more than a single divorce mom has freedom.

A divorced mother cannot move out of state without the consent of her ex.

A divorced mother cannot take her children abroad without the consent of her ex.

A divorced mother has to deal with her ex on every single issue no matter how awful he is.

A single mother does as she likes and as her financial status allows.

A single mother has to plan travel around school breaks. Is on call 24/7 even when she's sick. There's nobody to help clean up vomit from the bed at 3am. There are a million reasons why "freedom" and "single mother' don't go hand in hand. Stop trying to glamorize it. What you're looking to compare is a divorced mother to a single and childless woman. She only answers to herself.

A married woman does all the same and cleans up her H puke when he’s sick but doesn’t get anything in return

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

Right, that’s the age when the cool aunts become the cool SMBC whose nieces and nephews free babysit and who is in a place in her career to have a full time
Nanny.

It's not really a step up to be a SMBC. Nobody is envious of that person, doing it all alone, with a fatherless child. A nanny is not a replacement for a second parent.

Nannie’s are often better.

Women can have and raise babies without men, you make it sound like it’s impossible.

Of course it's possible. Never heard of a single mom before? But it's not desirable, at all. And no, a nanny is not a parent replacement. You must have a nanny if you think that to make yourself feel better.

It’s is desirable when it’s planned that way.

Not a replacement but better at providing support and not being a burden.

Most men are less helpful than a nanny/sister/grandmother.

Sadly, men are mostly missing or worse pouting about not getting more attention.

Remove him from the picture and life is much easier.

Please. It may be planned but any parent can attest to not really knowing what they were getting into. Doing it all on your own with no other parent to share the joys with is hardly desirable. It can be lonely, selfish, and a slog.

Most married women find raising kids with a man lonely, selfish and a slog.

they have one extra ungrateful child to care for and it pulls their attention from raising actual children. Men are contantly competing with their children for attention and it's like pulling teeth to get them to be a partner.... and those are the ones that are not working 24x7 to avoid home.

Most? Really? Care that back that up? Sorry you had a bad picker and married a dud.

Yes most. Look at divorce rates and unhappy marriage numbers.

I don’t have to be in an unhappy marriage to understand reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

There is time of data that most men don’t help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

You’ve answered op’s question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

[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:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

Right, that’s the age when the cool aunts become the cool SMBC whose nieces and nephews free babysit and who is in a place in her career to have a full time
Nanny.

It's not really a step up to be a SMBC. Nobody is envious of that person, doing it all alone, with a fatherless child. A nanny is not a replacement for a second parent.

Oh honey.

A ton of women with three kids (two babies and one husband) envy the independence and the freedom a wealthy single mother has. Go read more in this forum about how many people are staying because they can’t bear the thought of giving their kids up half the time.

The person no one envies is the woman married to a low-tier man.

Uh, no. Speak for yourself. I'd rather just be single and fabulous than be the sole, constant on duty, single plane.

And that’s fine— but the poster was bemoaning how women have “no families” as though women are constrained to having a child with a partner— they’re not and they’re frequently better off without one.

I wasn't that PP but I don't see the 40something woman deciding to just become SMBC as the answer to not being the 'cool aunt' anymore. There are lots of unenviable people out there. Those with the dud husband, this with the dud ex who rarely sees his kids, the SMBC trying to do it all alone..... none of these are ideal or enviable.

In your list only the SMBC has freedom. So she’s more enviable than the rest by a mile.

How is she free? When you have a kid you are no long free by any stretch. The ones I didn't mention have more free time: happily married with kids, happily married with no kids, and single and childless. SMBC has no freedom any more than a single divorce mom has freedom.

A divorced mother cannot move out of state without the consent of her ex.

A divorced mother cannot take her children abroad without the consent of her ex.

A divorced mother has to deal with her ex on every single issue no matter how awful he is.

A single mother does as she likes and as her financial status allows.

A single mother has to plan travel around school breaks. Is on call 24/7 even when she's sick. There's nobody to help clean up vomit from the bed at 3am. There are a million reasons why "freedom" and "single mother' don't go hand in hand. Stop trying to glamorize it. What you're looking to compare is a divorced mother to a single and childless woman. She only answers to herself.

A married woman does all the same and cleans up her H puke when he’s sick but doesn’t get anything in return

Ugh speak for yourself. My marriage is nothing like you describe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marriage makes sense for women who want to have families, and can have financial benefits if they live in an expensive area where buying a home or raising kids on a single salary might be challenging even if reasonably well paid.

Outside of that, marriage is often not a good deal for women, and a way for them to get tied down to someone who is unlikely to care for them as much as they expect to be cared for BY them, especially as you age.

So for women who doesn't want to or cannot have kids, and is financially stable, the ONLY situation in which a longterm relationship or marriage makes sense is if she meets someone who truly makes her happy and would be a good partner and bring something to the table. But by your late 30s and onward, the number of unmarried men who fit that description is very, very small. The ones who are out there might also have baggage you don't want to deal with (divorced or widowed, potentially children from a previous marriage, demanding jobs that are not conducive to compromise or relationships).

What is the value proposition for them? There really isn't one.

Meanwhile a lot of men in this age group want or even need women to do the stuff women do in relationships all the time -- make the home a nice place to be, maintain social relationships, plan vacations, encourage their partners to go to the doctor and dentist, etc. Women don't need someone to do that stuff. Many men do. It's honestly sad.

We need a new vision for being a man that brings more to the table than sperm and a job. Men need more soft skills that would actually benefit other people.

DH’s mother was beautiful and had a beautiful soul, but was also bipolar and deeply dysfunctional and FIL took on the role that a mother typically takes.

He was sad when MIL died fairly young, truly, but guess who is living his best life as a widower and NOT interested in dating or female companionship AT ALL? One of the few men that an older woman would actually want to date, that’s who.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

That's the risk. My friend became a default parent for her SMBC sister-in-law's kids when her SIL died early due to cancer. My friend had just finished raising her kids, and she's taken on this role begrudgingly because no one else was willing to step up. Prior to knowing her situation, I romanticized the SMBC option because I make plenty of money and I'm a bit controlling and love my freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

The outcome for the kids if they had two parents and lost their mother is still grim.

On the other hand most SMBC’s know this risk going in and so do the needful on life insurance and really carefully and intentionally picking guardians— and no one can second guess those choices and try to fight them in court because there isn’t a dad’s family to get involved.

It’s not for everyone. But if you have the resources and your choices are to marry a lower-tier man and be trapped, emotionally legally and financially, or to do it on your own? Do it on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marriage makes sense for women who want to have families, and can have financial benefits if they live in an expensive area where buying a home or raising kids on a single salary might be challenging even if reasonably well paid.

Outside of that, marriage is often not a good deal for women, and a way for them to get tied down to someone who is unlikely to care for them as much as they expect to be cared for BY them, especially as you age.

So for women who doesn't want to or cannot have kids, and is financially stable, the ONLY situation in which a longterm relationship or marriage makes sense is if she meets someone who truly makes her happy and would be a good partner and bring something to the table. But by your late 30s and onward, the number of unmarried men who fit that description is very, very small. The ones who are out there might also have baggage you don't want to deal with (divorced or widowed, potentially children from a previous marriage, demanding jobs that are not conducive to compromise or relationships).

What is the value proposition for them? There really isn't one.

Meanwhile a lot of men in this age group want or even need women to do the stuff women do in relationships all the time -- make the home a nice place to be, maintain social relationships, plan vacations, encourage their partners to go to the doctor and dentist, etc. Women don't need someone to do that stuff. Many men do. It's honestly sad.

We need a new vision for being a man that brings more to the table than sperm and a job. Men need more soft skills that would actually benefit other people.

I'm a hetero man who has been married twice. Is it really true men need women to make doctor's appointments and maintain relationships, etc.. Neither of my wives did this stuff for me. My male friends who remained single seemed to get along fine.

Marriage can be very challenging. It's hard to believe men are getting married and remarried because they can't take care of themselves. How did they survive nefore getting married?
Of course, I have no experience dating men so maybe I'm missing something?

I would say that unless men want children, marriage is not such a great deal for them either. Traditional women's tasks (e.g., cooking, cleaning, etc.) can be easily outsourced nowadays with meal prep if you don't like cooking, takeout, no-iron shirts, laundry, weekly cleaning service. Sex too is pretty accessible without marriage.

[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:Look ladies, it’s all fun and games to be the “cool aunt” when you are 28 and traveling the world. Everyone looks up to you and they want to be you. Then you turn 43 and you’re still single with no kids and your career has sort of peaked, as well as your looks.

You can’t be a “cool aunt” at 43

Right, that’s the age when the cool aunts become the cool SMBC whose nieces and nephews free babysit and who is in a place in her career to have a full time
Nanny.

It's not really a step up to be a SMBC. Nobody is envious of that person, doing it all alone, with a fatherless child. A nanny is not a replacement for a second parent.

Oh honey.

A ton of women with three kids (two babies and one husband) envy the independence and the freedom a wealthy single mother has. Go read more in this forum about how many people are staying because they can’t bear the thought of giving their kids up half the time.

The person no one envies is the woman married to a low-tier man.

Uh, no. Speak for yourself. I'd rather just be single and fabulous than be the sole, constant on duty, single plane.

And that’s fine— but the poster was bemoaning how women have “no families” as though women are constrained to having a child with a partner— they’re not and they’re frequently better off without one.

I wasn't that PP but I don't see the 40something woman deciding to just become SMBC as the answer to not being the 'cool aunt' anymore. There are lots of unenviable people out there. Those with the dud husband, this with the dud ex who rarely sees his kids, the SMBC trying to do it all alone..... none of these are ideal or enviable.

In your list only the SMBC has freedom. So she’s more enviable than the rest by a mile.

How is she free? When you have a kid you are no long free by any stretch. The ones I didn't mention have more free time: happily married with kids, happily married with no kids, and single and childless. SMBC has no freedom any more than a single divorce mom has freedom.

A divorced mother cannot move out of state without the consent of her ex.

A divorced mother cannot take her children abroad without the consent of her ex.

A divorced mother has to deal with her ex on every single issue no matter how awful he is.

A single mother does as she likes and as her financial status allows.

A single mother has to plan travel around school breaks. Is on call 24/7 even when she's sick. There's nobody to help clean up vomit from the bed at 3am. There are a million reasons why "freedom" and "single mother' don't go hand in hand. Stop trying to glamorize it. What you're looking to compare is a divorced mother to a single and childless woman. She only answers to herself.

A married woman does all the same and cleans up her H puke when he’s sick but doesn’t get anything in return

Ugh speak for yourself. My marriage is nothing like you describe.

Mine either, but I’m one person. Of the ten women closest to me, three of us are in great marriage. Two are divorced. Two are in really one sided “husband is a third kid” marriages. So the one single woman has a lot more examples of why to stay single than why to marry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean in any situation, if you're comparing a thing vs the absolute worse case as a baseline (horrible ex), then whatever that other thing is will be better.

Even a nice ex typically doesn’t consent to the other parent moving the kids abroad. SMBC gets 100% autonomy in how she raises her kids and where, without having someone else’s view to consider. She has exponentially more freedom than a married or divorced mother.

Um she should consider the kids once in awhile don't you think?

Yes she did and does. She will not have to split her attention the kids are way better off.

This freedom comes at a steep cost. No other person will be as interested in the kids as a loving father, the kids will never have a chance to know their father. Also hope SMBC doesn't get breast or colon cancer, or in the case of a dear friend, glioblastoma and leave her kids orphaned. There are tradeoffs and I'm not buying this perfect picture you painting of a fairy tale SMBC life. Being the sole supporter with no backup sounds terrible.

The outcome for the kids if they had two parents and lost their mother is still grim.

On the other hand most SMBC’s know this risk going in and so do the needful on life insurance and really carefully and intentionally picking guardians— and no one can second guess those choices and try to fight them in court because there isn’t a dad’s family to get involved.

It’s not for everyone. But if you have the resources and your choices are to marry a lower-tier man and be trapped, emotionally legally and financially, or to do it on your own? Do it on your own.

There is a third choice. Don't have kids.