Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage for a highly paid woman is like signing up for a servitude contract without any guarantees of payback. She enters it while still young and desirable for her fertility. When she's over 40, husband can just dump her and divide everything. Men are only valuing women for their looks, fertility and sexuality. Why enter a union where you are only needed for the qualities that last just as much, only to get disposed with HUGE collateral damage to you and your children in 10-20 years?

Marriage is only attractive to women without a good earning capacity.

Good point. Unless one strives to be a tradwife (fine if you want that), it’s not a good deal for women. Why cook for 2 when you could for 1? Why clean for 2 when it’s likely cleaner without a man and easier to clean? Many women can get easy casual sex if they want, but many would rather grab the rabbit. Unless you literally cannot provide for yourself (tradwife), it’s easier to go at it alone.

If you want a transactional tit for tat set up then marriage is clearly not for you. If you love and enjoy each other then you don't mind doing things for each other.

Give it up. women don’t want to be unpaid labor for men any more, which is a big big reason for the fertility decline.

You clearly feel jaded due to lack of good role models.

No, I feel jaded because of actual life experience and the material reality of being a woman. But sure, men could step it up collectively and become better role models. FWIW my dad was a great role model in terms of domestic labor such that I did not even realize how lazy most men are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy that women who have never married are focusing on the “unpaid labor” aspect. That’s more of an issue that arises in marriage later on, after kids arrive. I think the likelier explanations are increased working areas, fewer social interactions generally (we see this in studies of Americans having fewer and fewer friendships, some of which would of course lead to romance), economic instability and fewer college educated, emotionally stable and well paid eligible men. More than ever, women are looking for income and education in men.

Do you think young women are stupid? It’s not hard to see.

Dating isn’t like marriage. It’s hard to see down the line how someone will interact with you once kids come along. Especially if you have lust blinders on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the money and asset in our marriage and through inheritance is co-owned by DH and I.

My most important task is to set our kids up for success and give them the various leg-ups in life to help them succeed. Both of us are responsible for a smooth running and functional household and a happy married life.


DH and my fate are intertwined. We are a unit.

Until you die and he remarries immediately and leaves all the money to her 😂

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are really jaded. You act like no women has ever been happily married to a non-jerk before. That's really sad.

I'm not saying everyone wants a husband and children, but my husband and children enrich my life in so many ways and I would be very lonely and sad without them. Yes it's more "work" too - but I honestly don't know what I would do with all of my free time instead. No hobby takes that much time!

This place is an echo chamber of unhappy women. It serves basically the same function as an incel message board in reverse; it highlights the negative experiences of some people and encourages people reading it to identify with those negative experiences. It is, very often, pretty much removed from reality. Look at the conversation on housework and childcare. On average, women in households with children do more of those things than men, it's true. Men do, on average, about 16.5 hours per week of housework and childcare and women do around 31. Men, in turn, do paid work for 38.4 hours per week, to women's 21.6. The result is that men's combination of paid and unpaid work is slightly higher than women's, but overall it's essentially even.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/ which draws on the American Time Used Study

That's not the story you get here though. The story you get here both ignores the fact that men, on average, are doing housework and childcare (a couple hours a day on average) and that they're doing paid work enough more than women to more than offset the extra unpaid labor at home.

The basis of this thread is a WSj article that looks at national trends and provides supporting data.

It's not like this was just somebody randomly opining on the topic.

Also, the reason the article exists is because the relationship between men working and earning and childcare/household contributions is breaking down

Yes. So when the man gets paid more, there is a balance between the work that both partners provide, paid and unpaid. However, research has shown that men do NOT increase their non-paid labor in the house when women get paid more and/or have more intense schedules. Hence why the frustration of so many women who work their a* off, make the most $, and come home to take care of an extra toddler in form of a man. A man-child is not very sexually attractive. This is the reality for the future, as women graduate from college at higher rates and are more successful and will make more money.
I don't hate man. I'm happily married with two grown sons. But if I were to have a daughter, I would absolutely disapprove that she'd marry someone from a lower socioeconomic background and/or someone who doesn't make a lot of money and is ambitious. The data show that she'd probably have to do two jobs, while her H would contribute incrementally to the labor.

my 30 year old niece dumped a guy because he was unambitious and lazy, at home and at work. Double whammy.

She is now married to a plumber who is ambitious and does a lot at home. She has a masters degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the money and asset in our marriage and through inheritance is co-owned by DH and I.

My most important task is to set our kids up for success and give them the various leg-ups in life to help them succeed. Both of us are responsible for a smooth running and functional household and a happy married life.


DH and my fate are intertwined. We are a unit.

It's owned by DH and me, not DH and I. You sont say it is owned by I and it doesn't change when you add another person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, I guess I did choose poorly.

But I’m not ranting about people being married- I’ve tried it. I’m explaining why- having tried it- I don’t need or want to try it or a relationship approximating it, again.

Have you tried being single after marriage? Have you tried being single and independently wealthy? If so I’d love to hear your opinion. If not and you just picked at my post because it triggered something in you, all the best.

You were commenting on a post about societal trends. My point is that maybe the problem in your relationships is unique to you and not instructive as to larger trends. I think this is true based on your responses.

My experience is aligned with the tends I was commenting on.

You want to make this about me when millions of women agree with me- per the facts

Pick elsewhere.

Billions when you account for China, South Korea, and Japan, as discussed on this thread. South Korea can't even pay women to get married and have kids. What are the long-term consequences of a negative birthrate? Is it that bad? AI is getting better at doing our work at an exponential rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage for a highly paid woman is like signing up for a servitude contract without any guarantees of payback. She enters it while still young and desirable for her fertility. When she's over 40, husband can just dump her and divide everything. Men are only valuing women for their looks, fertility and sexuality. Why enter a union where you are only needed for the qualities that last just as much, only to get disposed with HUGE collateral damage to you and your children in 10-20 years?

Marriage is only attractive to women without a good earning capacity.

Good point. Unless one strives to be a tradwife (fine if you want that), it’s not a good deal for women. Why cook for 2 when you could for 1? Why clean for 2 when it’s likely cleaner without a man and easier to clean? Many women can get easy casual sex if they want, but many would rather grab the rabbit. Unless you literally cannot provide for yourself (tradwife), it’s easier to go at it alone.

If you want a transactional tit for tat set up then marriage is clearly not for you. If you love and enjoy each other then you don't mind doing things for each other.

Give it up. women don’t want to be unpaid labor for men any more, which is a big big reason for the fertility decline.

And I think the big precursor to this was women returning to the work force full time in large numbers. Say what you want about the SAHM dynamic, but for women okay with (or wanting to) perform those duties, it feels a lot less like "unpaid" labor and instead more like a partnership. Obviously if you hate housekeeping and childrearing then that isn't going to work for you. But as a long-time SAHM with a financially successful husband, I don't feel like my labor is unpaid. I live a very nice life. And I am a lot less resentful than most of them women on this thread.

Gosh another one who doesn’t get it. this isn’t about your supposedly Donna Reed experience. It’s about what women experience on average, and what they do in response, in every setting where they are able to control their marital status and fertility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy that women who have never married are focusing on the “unpaid labor” aspect. That’s more of an issue that arises in marriage later on, after kids arrive. I think the likelier explanations are increased working areas, fewer social interactions generally (we see this in studies of Americans having fewer and fewer friendships, some of which would of course lead to romance), economic instability and fewer college educated, emotionally stable and well paid eligible men. More than ever, women are looking for income and education in men.

Do you think young women are stupid? It’s not hard to see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are really jaded. You act like no women has ever been happily married to a non-jerk before. That's really sad.

I'm not saying everyone wants a husband and children, but my husband and children enrich my life in so many ways and I would be very lonely and sad without them. Yes it's more "work" too - but I honestly don't know what I would do with all of my free time instead. No hobby takes that much time!

This place is an echo chamber of unhappy women. It serves basically the same function as an incel message board in reverse; it highlights the negative experiences of some people and encourages people reading it to identify with those negative experiences. It is, very often, pretty much removed from reality. Look at the conversation on housework and childcare. On average, women in households with children do more of those things than men, it's true. Men do, on average, about 16.5 hours per week of housework and childcare and women do around 31. Men, in turn, do paid work for 38.4 hours per week, to women's 21.6. The result is that men's combination of paid and unpaid work is slightly higher than women's, but overall it's essentially even.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/ which draws on the American Time Used Study

That's not the story you get here though. The story you get here both ignores the fact that men, on average, are doing housework and childcare (a couple hours a day on average) and that they're doing paid work enough more than women to more than offset the extra unpaid labor at home.

The basis of this thread is a WSj article that looks at national trends and provides supporting data.

It's not like this was just somebody randomly opining on the topic.

Also, the reason the article exists is because the relationship between men working and earning and childcare/household contributions is breaking down

Yes. So when the man gets paid more, there is a balance between the work that both partners provide, paid and unpaid. However, research has shown that men do NOT increase their non-paid labor in the house when women get paid more and/or have more intense schedules. Hence why the frustration of so many women who work their a* off, make the most $, and come home to take care of an extra toddler in form of a man. A man-child is not very sexually attractive. This is the reality for the future, as women graduate from college at higher rates and are more successful and will make more money.
I don't hate man. I'm happily married with two grown sons. But if I were to have a daughter, I would absolutely disapprove that she'd marry someone from a lower socioeconomic background and/or someone who doesn't make a lot of money and is ambitious. The data show that she'd probably have to do two jobs, while her H would contribute incrementally to the labor.

Anonymous wrote:Fellas, ya'll reading this?

Unless you want to have kids, stay unmarried. And even if you do, try to do it without getting married to one of these...

She may seem sweet when she wants that ring, status and security, but peruse this thread to see what she will quickly turn into.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the money and asset in our marriage and through inheritance is co-owned by DH and I.

My most important task is to set our kids up for success and give them the various leg-ups in life to help them succeed. Both of us are responsible for a smooth running and functional household and a happy married life.


DH and my fate are intertwined. We are a unit.

It's owned by DH and me, not DH and I. You sont say it is owned by I and it doesn't change when you add another person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see references to studies comparing time spent with paid/unpaid work. I'd be interested to see sort of the negative of this - comparing time spent on leisure/sleeping to see if, as you'd suspect from the work measurements, men are spending more time sitting around, sleeping, or doing hobbies.

And, if the disparity in time spent working didn't translate to a more or less corresponding disparity in time spent on leisure, it would be interesting to figure out why not.

Men spend more time on leisure, women spend more time sleeping: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/27/working-husbands-in-the-us-have-more-leisure-time-than-working-wives-do-especially-among-those-with-children/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=6da143ade5-Weekly_10-28-23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-6da143ade5-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

Thanks! According to that, men spend about 86.8 hours/week on sleep & leisure and women spend about 86.3 hours/week on sleep & leisure.

In that study, leisure is specific activities. There are unaccounted for hours in the study, when you subtract out all the different categories (work, sleep, leisure, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:All the money and asset in our marriage and through inheritance is co-owned by DH and I.

My most important task is to set our kids up for success and give them the various leg-ups in life to help them succeed. Both of us are responsible for a smooth running and functional household and a happy married life.


DH and my fate are intertwined. We are a unit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, I guess I did choose poorly.

But I’m not ranting about people being married- I’ve tried it. I’m explaining why- having tried it- I don’t need or want to try it or a relationship approximating it, again.

Have you tried being single after marriage? Have you tried being single and independently wealthy? If so I’d love to hear your opinion. If not and you just picked at my post because it triggered something in you, all the best.

You were commenting on a post about societal trends. My point is that maybe the problem in your relationships is unique to you and not instructive as to larger trends. I think this is true based on your responses.

My experience is aligned with the tends I was commenting on.

You want to make this about me when millions of women agree with me- per the facts

Pick elsewhere.