[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.[/quote]

With all due respect, yes it is. IVF may be prohibitively expensive but that’s not the only route to SMBC. Most households with children are headed by women, so while how much of that is “choice” is anyone’s guess, there’s no overwhelming financial or logistical hurdle here. [/quote]

I mean, kids are expensive. Most families need two incomes to make it work. Or one income with the other parent home providing childcare. How many women make enough money and/or have enough family support to afford it on their own?[/quote]

No they do not. A nurse with a ba helps degree can make 90K a year working 3 12 hour shifts. She can buy an apartment in a good district in Frederick and live comfortably once they kid/kids are over 10, she can do 4 shifts and make over 100k. That is plenty of income.

And people who have friends and family with similar aged kids can take turns babysitting each other's kids while parents work or pick up shifts.
[/quote]

I was a single father in basically the same position, and not as fun or easy as you make it sound.[/quote]

I know women who are doing/ have done this, and they are happy with their choice. Men and women are different so this might not necessarily be as good an option for men as it is for women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

With all due respect, yes it is. IVF may be prohibitively expensive but that’s not the only route to SMBC. Most households with children are headed by women, so while how much of that is “choice” is anyone’s guess, there’s no overwhelming financial or logistical hurdle here.

I mean, kids are expensive. Most families need two incomes to make it work. Or one income with the other parent home providing childcare. How many women make enough money and/or have enough family support to afford it on their own?

No they do not. A nurse with a ba helps degree can make 90K a year working 3 12 hour shifts. She can buy an apartment in a good district in Frederick and live comfortably once they kid/kids are over 10, she can do 4 shifts and make over 100k. That is plenty of income.

And people who have friends and family with similar aged kids can take turns babysitting each other's kids while parents work or pick up shifts.

I was a single father in basically the same position, and not as fun or easy as you make it sound.

Being a single parent is even more exhausting. My sister was a single parent, but thankfully, she had my parents to lean on.

Also $90K/year with more than one kid even in Frederick means you are barely saving for retirement and college for your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems to be a thematic series at the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/magazine/men-heterofatalism-dating-relationships.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YU8.43pQ.EZ4bi1dHDtR_&smid=url-share

Men are just unable to operate in normal, grown up relationships - or at least that's what the these articles would have us believe.

Honestly, I think this is turning into a pretty tired trope. (guy here)

A lot of woman can't take the weaponized incompetence. "You told me to take down the xmas lights, but you did not tell me to put them away anywhere. How am I supposed to know??"

Men need to wash their own shiz and clean the house, too. They need to not say they are "babysitting" their own kids. They need to cook 50% of the time or more.

They need to hold the mental load of children's medical appts, dental appointments, school forms, field trip forms and dates, school volunteering possibilities, and carpooling if needed. They need to track the TeamSnap for the children's sports teams, bring the lasagna to the swim team potluck, and drive the kids back and forth to these events.

That's just a drop of what men need to start doing.

I researched ALL of the kid's summer camps, and it was very time consuming because I had to consider date, time, interests and distance for two kids with varying interests. Some of the camps were so popular that they'd fill up by January.

That was super time consuming, and then yea, the camp forms. I did this for 10+ years all while working FT.

Oh, and the birthday parties. I am not a good party planner; I don't like doing it, but I did it all. I start the discussions with my kids about what they want to do. I'd be happy with DH doing it but he doesn't think about these things until late.

I juggled kids' and my appointments, activities, etc.. DH just had to deal with himself.

I'm sure if I asked DH to do it, he would've, but the thing that bothers me is that I always had to ask. Doesn't appear to me that most dads think about kids stuff as much as moms do, or at least they only pickup things that interest them (which is like 5% of stuff that needs doing), like drivers' ed. DH did initiate that one because he likes cars.

I agree that moms take on more of the mental load than dads even if the dads do the cooking and other housechores. It's like they can just manage their own mental load, and that's about it. They certainly don't want to do the mundane things that are required. I don't even think a lot of dads even think about those mundane tasks.

Oh, and the college talk. More moms talk to their kids about the future and college than dads. That was also true in my case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

With all due respect, yes it is. IVF may be prohibitively expensive but that’s not the only route to SMBC. Most households with children are headed by women, so while how much of that is “choice” is anyone’s guess, there’s no overwhelming financial or logistical hurdle here.

I mean, kids are expensive. Most families need two incomes to make it work. Or one income with the other parent home providing childcare. How many women make enough money and/or have enough family support to afford it on their own?

No they do not. A nurse with a ba helps degree can make 90K a year working 3 12 hour shifts. She can buy an apartment in a good district in Frederick and live comfortably once they kid/kids are over 10, she can do 4 shifts and make over 100k. That is plenty of income.

And people who have friends and family with similar aged kids can take turns babysitting each other's kids while parents work or pick up shifts.

I was a single father in basically the same position, and not as fun or easy as you make it sound.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
There is no point in settling.

It is mentally difficult to try to marry someone that you aren’t all that interested in. You’re expected to have sex with that man for decades, and eventually you will run out of steam pretending you like it and end up with some messed up dead bedroom marriage. I’ll pass.

Agreed. I wonder about the people who tell others to settle. Did they settle? Are they happy? Did their partner settle for them? Do they not believe that real love and compatibility is possible? Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for? Idk.

"Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for?"

You almost never see a truly mismatched couple, in the wild, where she clearly settled and he is "subpar". It just doesn't shake out that way because in real life, a woman who truly "can do better" will do better because a better man will approach her. Women who conclude "they settled" are just fantasizing about a choice they never actually had, where they married some imaginary superstar rather than one of the men who was actually in her social orbit. (The male equivalent of this is his fantasy where he coulda shoulda married a supermodel but "settled" for the woman he met at the office.)

But anyway. Let's say you don't settle. You marry your soulmate, you are passionately attracted to him. Is it guaranteed that you will never get annoyed with him, lose interest in him, find sex with him tiresome, and end up in a dead bedroom marriage? No. We see this in DCUM Relationships all the time. (And of course, that's when you mentally rewrite the entire marriage and decide that you settled.)

Now let's say you settled. He's not a superstar, he's just OK. We could question whether you realistically had any better options when you settled, but whatever. Things with him aren't great, but you have fantastic children who love you. Is that a fate worse than death or something? Would you really prefer to restart your life from the save point before you got married, and not have your children on the replay? OK you got bored and divorced him. But that also happens to plenty of women who married their "soulmates".

Or you have those fantastic kids who love you on your own and don’t risk losing them 50% of the time when you get bored and divorced. Not seeing the benefit of settling in your story?

The benefit of "settling" is you have fantastic kids. This is better than not getting married and not having kids. The 50% risk of "bored and get divorced" happens whether or not you settle.

To the bolded: Better for who? Everyone has different goals and dreams in life. For some women having kids trumps everything else. So compatibility looks different for these women than for women who will be fine without kids.

Additionally, some women do not place day to day paternal involvement as high on the list as others do, so they may be more compatible with a man who works 60+ hours while other women may not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
There is no point in settling.

It is mentally difficult to try to marry someone that you aren’t all that interested in. You’re expected to have sex with that man for decades, and eventually you will run out of steam pretending you like it and end up with some messed up dead bedroom marriage. I’ll pass.

Agreed. I wonder about the people who tell others to settle. Did they settle? Are they happy? Did their partner settle for them? Do they not believe that real love and compatibility is possible? Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for? Idk.

"Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for?"

You almost never see a truly mismatched couple, in the wild, where she clearly settled and he is "subpar". It just doesn't shake out that way because in real life, a woman who truly "can do better" will do better because a better man will approach her. Women who conclude "they settled" are just fantasizing about a choice they never actually had, where they married some imaginary superstar rather than one of the men who was actually in her social orbit. (The male equivalent of this is his fantasy where he coulda shoulda married a supermodel but "settled" for the woman he met at the office.)

But anyway. Let's say you don't settle. You marry your soulmate, you are passionately attracted to him. Is it guaranteed that you will never get annoyed with him, lose interest in him, find sex with him tiresome, and end up in a dead bedroom marriage? No. We see this in DCUM Relationships all the time. (And of course, that's when you mentally rewrite the entire marriage and decide that you settled.)

Now let's say you settled. He's not a superstar, he's just OK. We could question whether you realistically had any better options when you settled, but whatever. Things with him aren't great, but you have fantastic children who love you. Is that a fate worse than death or something? Would you really prefer to restart your life from the save point before you got married, and not have your children on the replay? OK you got bored and divorced him. But that also happens to plenty of women who married their "soulmates".

Or you have those fantastic kids who love you on your own and don’t risk losing them 50% of the time when you get bored and divorced. Not seeing the benefit of settling in your story?

The benefit of "settling" is you have fantastic kids. This is better than not getting married and not having kids. The 50% risk of "bored and get divorced" happens whether or not you settle.

Do you have fantastic kids? If you have them with some mentally ill alcoholic who beats you? You don't think genetics play some part? You don't think environment growing up play some part?

Objectively it's better not to settle and do it on your own how you want than settle for a sh*t stain dead beat. The optimum is always going to be two healthy happy parents, but that is rarer and rarer these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

With all due respect, yes it is. IVF may be prohibitively expensive but that’s not the only route to SMBC. Most households with children are headed by women, so while how much of that is “choice” is anyone’s guess, there’s no overwhelming financial or logistical hurdle here.

100%. So many single mom households - not by choice. Actually doing it yourself from the start is NOT that prohibitive. This is the narrative being pushed by red pill men hoping that women will settle for them (aka take care of them like a bang-mommy) who contribute nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
There is no point in settling.

It is mentally difficult to try to marry someone that you aren’t all that interested in. You’re expected to have sex with that man for decades, and eventually you will run out of steam pretending you like it and end up with some messed up dead bedroom marriage. I’ll pass.

Agreed. I wonder about the people who tell others to settle. Did they settle? Are they happy? Did their partner settle for them? Do they not believe that real love and compatibility is possible? Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for? Idk.

"Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for?"

You almost never see a truly mismatched couple, in the wild, where she clearly settled and he is "subpar". It just doesn't shake out that way because in real life, a woman who truly "can do better" will do better because a better man will approach her. Women who conclude "they settled" are just fantasizing about a choice they never actually had, where they married some imaginary superstar rather than one of the men who was actually in her social orbit. (The male equivalent of this is his fantasy where he coulda shoulda married a supermodel but "settled" for the woman he met at the office.)

But anyway. Let's say you don't settle. You marry your soulmate, you are passionately attracted to him. Is it guaranteed that you will never get annoyed with him, lose interest in him, find sex with him tiresome, and end up in a dead bedroom marriage? No. We see this in DCUM Relationships all the time. (And of course, that's when you mentally rewrite the entire marriage and decide that you settled.)

Now let's say you settled. He's not a superstar, he's just OK. We could question whether you realistically had any better options when you settled, but whatever. Things with him aren't great, but you have fantastic children who love you. Is that a fate worse than death or something? Would you really prefer to restart your life from the save point before you got married, and not have your children on the replay? OK you got bored and divorced him. But that also happens to plenty of women who married their "soulmates".

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of relationships. You are saying settling is only related to sexual attraction, and you are comparing soulmates to sexual attraction. There is so much more to relationships that add compatibility and happiness but you are hyper focused on this aspect only - why is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

The problem is that people restrict themselves to just two models: parent with a romantic partner or parent alone.

One of my straight female coworkers paired up platonically with another straight female teacher in our district so that they could have and raise children. Townhouse in Germantown initially, then a SFH in Frederick. Their kids are late ES age now and her parenting partner just started dating so they may part ways, but the hard part is already done.

+1.

And many women " pair up" like this even if living in separate houses next to each other without any formal arrangements.

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

The problem is that people restrict themselves to just two models: parent with a romantic partner or parent alone.

One of my straight female coworkers paired up platonically with another straight female teacher in our district so that they could have and raise children. Townhouse in Germantown initially, then a SFH in Frederick. Their kids are late ES age now and her parenting partner just started dating so they may part ways, but the hard part is already done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
There is no point in settling.

It is mentally difficult to try to marry someone that you aren’t all that interested in. You’re expected to have sex with that man for decades, and eventually you will run out of steam pretending you like it and end up with some messed up dead bedroom marriage. I’ll pass.

Agreed. I wonder about the people who tell others to settle. Did they settle? Are they happy? Did their partner settle for them? Do they not believe that real love and compatibility is possible? Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for? Idk.

"Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for?"

You almost never see a truly mismatched couple, in the wild, where she clearly settled and he is "subpar". It just doesn't shake out that way because in real life, a woman who truly "can do better" will do better because a better man will approach her. Women who conclude "they settled" are just fantasizing about a choice they never actually had, where they married some imaginary superstar rather than one of the men who was actually in her social orbit. (The male equivalent of this is his fantasy where he coulda shoulda married a supermodel but "settled" for the woman he met at the office.)

But anyway. Let's say you don't settle. You marry your soulmate, you are passionately attracted to him. Is it guaranteed that you will never get annoyed with him, lose interest in him, find sex with him tiresome, and end up in a dead bedroom marriage? No. We see this in DCUM Relationships all the time. (And of course, that's when you mentally rewrite the entire marriage and decide that you settled.)

Now let's say you settled. He's not a superstar, he's just OK. We could question whether you realistically had any better options when you settled, but whatever. Things with him aren't great, but you have fantastic children who love you. Is that a fate worse than death or something? Would you really prefer to restart your life from the save point before you got married, and not have your children on the replay? OK you got bored and divorced him. But that also happens to plenty of women who married their "soulmates".

Or you have those fantastic kids who love you on your own and don’t risk losing them 50% of the time when you get bored and divorced. Not seeing the benefit of settling in your story?

The benefit of "settling" is you have fantastic kids. This is better than not getting married and not having kids. The 50% risk of "bored and get divorced" happens whether or not you settle.

^

Many nurses do this, and then go back to school for a Nurse practitioner in their late 40s. They are making 150K in their 50s with adult kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

With all due respect, yes it is. IVF may be prohibitively expensive but that’s not the only route to SMBC. Most households with children are headed by women, so while how much of that is “choice” is anyone’s guess, there’s no overwhelming financial or logistical hurdle here.

I mean, kids are expensive. Most families need two incomes to make it work. Or one income with the other parent home providing childcare. How many women make enough money and/or have enough family support to afford it on their own?

No they do not. A nurse with a ba helps degree can make 90K a year working 3 12 hour shifts. She can buy an apartment in a good district in Frederick and live comfortably once they kid/kids are over 10, she can do 4 shifts and make over 100k. That is plenty of income.

And people who have friends and family with similar aged kids can take turns babysitting each other's kids while parents work or pick up shifts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

With all due respect, yes it is. IVF may be prohibitively expensive but that’s not the only route to SMBC. Most households with children are headed by women, so while how much of that is “choice” is anyone’s guess, there’s no overwhelming financial or logistical hurdle here.

I mean, kids are expensive. Most families need two incomes to make it work. Or one income with the other parent home providing childcare. How many women make enough money and/or have enough family support to afford it on their own?

15.6 million American children are raised by single mothers. So clearly a reasonable number of women believe they can make it work OR find themselves in a position where they have to. Better to make it a choice than have it chosen for you IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this forum is a bubble, but let's not pretend that SMBC is a viable option for the vast majority of women for logistical and financial reasons. That doesn't mean you should settle for a loser, but for most people the choice is settle vs. no kids, not settle vs, SMBC.

With all due respect, yes it is. IVF may be prohibitively expensive but that’s not the only route to SMBC. Most households with children are headed by women, so while how much of that is “choice” is anyone’s guess, there’s no overwhelming financial or logistical hurdle here.

I mean, kids are expensive. Most families need two incomes to make it work. Or one income with the other parent home providing childcare. How many women make enough money and/or have enough family support to afford it on their own?