Anonymous wrote:It's certainly a better deal for women than it is for men

I don’t see how. Now I get to do all the traditional wife stuff AND Work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly a better deal for women than it is for men

I agree with this. I don’t see why most men get married.

This is untrue: men with SAHW perform better in career vs those who are unmarried. They have a free laborer on everything else at home.

Anonymous wrote:30% of married women do not work. They probably think it's worth it

Yep - marriage is only for the non career, non college educated women. Otherwise, literally no benefit.

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly a better deal for women than it is for men

Not always. For the men who are breadwinners, they likely don't have very much household responsibility. For women who are breadwinners, they typically still have at least 50% of the responsibility for running the household.

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly a better deal for women than it is for men

Absolutely not.

Anonymous wrote:If she wants male company, sex, and children then yes it is absolutely worth it.

If she doesn’t want any permutation of the three, she should be completely alone. No men, no sex, no dating, straight monk (nun?) mode. More people are well-suited to celibacy than they believe.

What the hell?? What year is it?

It’s probably not worth it for most. If IUI/IVF were covered by insurance and more accepted, I think more women would go that route. I would certainly advise my daughters to have their own careers and own children and not get married. Most of my married friends would be better off without their deadweight husbands.

Or marry another woman.

Anonymous wrote:It's certainly a better deal for women than it is for men

I agree with this. I don’t see why most men get married.

Anonymous wrote:All i know is that between the ages of 40 and 60, most men could trade up but most women could not

I couldn't trade up because my husband is the best.

Anonymous wrote:All i know is that between the ages of 40 and 60, most men could trade up but most women could not

Perhaps, until the money runs out. Same story for women with money.

All i know is that between the ages of 40 and 60, most men could trade up but most women could not

Anonymous wrote:30% of married women do not work. They probably think it's worth it

It's worth it for most of the 33% that do not work. It's often not worth it for women who have or make their own money.

It's certainly a better deal for women than it is for men

30% of married women do not work. They probably think it's worth it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she wants male company, sex, and children then yes it is absolutely worth it.

If she doesn’t want any permutation of the three, she should be completely alone. No men, no sex, no dating, straight monk (nun?) mode. More people are well-suited to celibacy than they believe.

You don't need to be married to obtain those things. In fact, I would argue those things are better without being married.

That’s the fantasy isn’t it? Except it is a very stupid woman who would do wife duties for a man who didn’t marry her. Just be single, you really will be happier.

Being single and celibate are not the same thing?

And ‘wife’ duties are being the unpaid cook, cleaner, chauffeur, AA partner, and nag. You don’t have to do any of those things just to have sex.

Why would you even want to have sex so badly with a class (that is, men) you have so little respect and even more contempt for? Just leave men alone.