NYT: "The Trouble with Men"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are still plenty of financial efficiency reasons for marriage later in life. Particular if you are lucky to find a partner with similar lifestyle and goals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The ones with a great personality usually.

Short and a sad sack is a fatal combo. Broodiness gets a pass if you are tall.

[Anonymous]

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).

That's great, but that alone does not make one a good partner. My ex knew how to do all of those things, and had 2 degrees in a STEM field, yet would criticize my daughter and I relentlessly. We get along fine as acquaintances now, but he was not a good life partner.

[Anonymous]

Short and a sad sack is a fatal combo. Broodiness gets a pass if you are tall.

Yikes. Being introverted is not the same thing as being broody or a sad sack. I agree that women generally prefer outgoing men, but I would take someone who is just quiet over someone broody any day, if those were my options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

That's great, but that alone does not make one a good partner. My ex knew how to do all of those things, and had 2 degrees in a STEM field, yet would criticize my daughter and I relentlessly. We get along fine as acquaintances now, but he was not a good life partner.

of course, personality is important. He's pretty chill and wants to have a family one day. But, we aren't talking about just personality, but about what women are looking for in a partner.

You obviously didn't know he was going to be that critical of your child when you married him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's NYT's agenda?

Sell newspapers to democrats who lack critical thinking skills.

The NYT Democrat?

[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.

Evolved??? That sounds like women need to evolve to see past looks to personality and mind. It also sounds like the same criticism levied at men who haven’t evolved. Yuck.

[Anonymous]

I have a younger friend I volunteer with who would date the bank teller. She's shorter than him and very kind, friendly, and smart. She has a cool (but not highly paid) job and no kids.

She's overweight and not conventionally beautiful, though. She has a hard time dating for these reasons (and no, she's not chasing the 6-6-6s). Seems like a lot of Average Joes don't want to pair up with Average Janes - it's not "settling" to pair up with somebody of a similar attractiveness level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's the AA degree working as a teller that's off putting for most educated women. These women aren't necessarily looking for a wallet, but they want an equal partner.

Is he working towards a bachelor's degree in a good paying field?

I don't think he is necessarily seeking someone more educated than him. He would prefer someone who also has at least an associate's degree or is working towards one. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I don't think he would rule out someone with just a high school degree, but would prefer some college.
The apartment he shares with a roommate is nice and well-maintained.
He's done some classes at night but honestly is pretty happy with his current job. He came from not the best circumstances in life, so I think he is doing really well.

Kudos to him for having a job and trying to better himself coming from bad circumstances.

But, single women won't care about that. His current circumstances are not attractive to even uneducated women.

Being a teller is a dead end job, and the pay is awful (I'm the one who used to date a guy who worked as a teller in college). Most women who are in college, whether towards an AA or BA/BS, are trying to go for a better paying job. They aren't going to want to partner with someone who is not in a similar position - working towards a better paying job.

+1.

Even a Certfied Nurse Assistant with a 6 week training is better off financially than he is.

Can he become a fire fighter? At least there is career progression there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a younger friend I volunteer with who would date the bank teller. She's shorter than him and very kind, friendly, and smart. She has a cool (but not highly paid) job and no kids.

She's overweight and not conventionally beautiful, though. She has a hard time dating for these reasons (and no, she's not chasing the 6-6-6s). Seems like a lot of Average Joes don't want to pair up with Average Janes - it's not "settling" to pair up with somebody of a similar attractiveness level.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a younger friend I volunteer with who would date the bank teller. She's shorter than him and very kind, friendly, and smart. She has a cool (but not highly paid) job and no kids.

She's overweight and not conventionally beautiful, though. She has a hard time dating for these reasons (and no, she's not chasing the 6-6-6s). Seems like a lot of Average Joes don't want to pair up with Average Janes - it's not "settling" to pair up with somebody of a similar attractiveness level.

The Average types have a near impossible time on dating apps. It’s all about advertising your looks and your stats without actually knowing the persons personality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Evolved??? That sounds like women need to evolve to see past looks to personality and mind. It also sounds like the same criticism levied at men who haven’t evolved. Yuck.

Why choose?. How about great personality, mind, looks abd financial stability?

Many women would rather stay single than settle.i have an aunt who is very picky with looks, and she ended up having a child by herself when she was running out of time. Now she has a good looking boyfriend, and her child is almost in college. She is very happy with her decision to have a child on her own and wait for a guy she is attracted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Short and a sad sack is a fatal combo. Broodiness gets a pass if you are tall.

Yikes. Being introverted is not the same thing as being broody or a sad sack. I agree that women generally prefer outgoing men, but I would take someone who is just quiet over someone broody any day, if those were my options.

You are one conflating introverted with having a sour attitude. Quiet is fine. It’s not fine when it is written all over your face that you believe the world has wronged you because you are short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

And then, he decides he needs a younger model and the current wife should gracefully withdraw into genteel poverty.