Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find these conversations funny - are Elizabeth Hurley, Naomi Campbell, AOC, Krysten Sinema to be pitied because they never married?

What if you only had a 3-year starter marriage like Padma Lakshmi?

What if you got married late and never had kids like Kamala Harris?

What if you've been divorced or 'single' for over a decade like Katie Couric?

What if you married a douchebag like Meghan Edmonds King or Kate Gosselin + forced to raise 3-10 kids on your own?

Wake up.

40 year old single lady whining on DCUM relationship forum why she can’t find a good man is not Elizabeth Hurley or Naomi Campbell. She also isn’t the Vice President.

Hahahaha yes this exactly. Can't stop laughing at the comparisons in this PP.

Add that lady from Unorthodox who married a gazillionaire in her 40s, with 4 kids, coming out of a cult.

Anonymous wrote:This board is full of women whose greatest (and perhaps only) accomplishment was getting married. They literally can't understand women who didn't make The Ring their one and only goal.

Before I married, I had secured a successful career, published bylines in The Washington Post, presented at am international academic conference, earned a Master’s degree, developed close friendships, maintain close family relationships, learned three languages, and traveled the world. And yes, now I also have a husband and children.

Sorry to burst your jealous bubble.

I mean...not every single woman in her mid to late thirties did not want to a.settle down b. get married or c. have children. Sometimes, believe it or not, life happens! You can meet your dream man at 25, get married at 28 and at 32 find out he is a cheating abusing alcoholic! So you find yourself back at square one.

It is very mean to kick someone when they are down. Not all of us are here by choice. If I had it my way, I'd have 2 kids, a wonderful husband and a nice home.

Duh, y’all. It’s because white women are the foot soldiers of the patriarchy! We oppress and police one another with more efficiency and ruthlessness than men ever could.

PS the entire CONCEPT of “sexual market value” is beyond disgusting. I’d rather be alone for all my days than spend a hot minute with anyone who applies the most rank aspects of capitalism to their partners. So gross!

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I wonder why extremely wealthy people marry in the first place. If J.K. Rowling divorced her husband she'd be out a castle and $25 billion just like Bezos + Gates with their respective divorces.

Meanwhile Oprah has a long-time beau (note she's not single but she's never been married) and she will not have to give him a dime if they broke up. I'm sure she'd be generous and throw a $10 million or so his way, but in comparison to billions...

MacKenzie Bezos is not a good example of this. She was a true co-founder of Amazon and would have been entitled to billions even if she hadn’t been Jeff’s wife.

You can't handle the truth.

Anonymous wrote:To the OP: Ask yourself this, would any of these comments be made to the person's face at a dinner party? Of course not! It's rude and this is the internet where people feel free to say things they would not say in person.

That said, women's sexual market value does tend to decline as they get older. Men's sexual market value declines with age too, but because mens sexual market value is more heavily influenced by earning potential, the decline is slower and indeed rises to some extent through their 30s-early 40s.

I cannot bear the term “market value” when referring to a human being.

On an anonymous message board, people are prone to being more blunt, harsh, and even toxic. However, I do think sometimes posters are trying to be at least a little helpful. Though society has progressed, a woman's "value" and desirability by single, heterosexual, marriage-minded men does often decline as she ages because of the correlation with declining fertility. Is this right? Absolutely not, but I do think it's helpful to at least let women, who are interested in getting married and having kids, know that they have to invest some effort and time to proactively cultivating a relationship that will lead to this.

Because it's the truth. The truth hurts sometimes. If you don't want an honest answer then don't go online and ask the question.

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you even read this site? Every hour people are making snarky comments about others…women who SAH, women who WOH, wives who gained weight, dads who work long hours, men who don’t earn high salaries, people who live in PG county, parents who send their kids to public school, people who enjoy vacations at Disney…the list goes on. Try having the self confidence to not care what random losers wasting time on the internet have to say about your choices.

It's not that I take it personally. . But why is it okay to be casually misogynistic? I guess you must partake in it since you want to downplay it?

Anonymous wrote:To the OP: Ask yourself this, would any of these comments be made to the person's face at a dinner party? Of course not! It's rude and this is the internet where people feel free to say things they would not say in person.

That said, women's sexual market value does tend to decline as they get older. Men's sexual market value declines with age too, but because mens sexual market value is more heavily influenced by earning potential, the decline is slower and indeed rises to some extent through their 30s-early 40s.

That's where you are wrong people do say stuff like this face to face. I also don't think it's okay to post hateful and misogynistic things online just because it's anoumous. Toxic is toxic.

To the OP: Ask yourself this, would any of these comments be made to the person's face at a dinner party? Of course not! It's rude and this is the internet where people feel free to say things they would not say in person.

That said, women's sexual market value does tend to decline as they get older. Men's sexual market value declines with age too, but because mens sexual market value is more heavily influenced by earning potential, the decline is slower and indeed rises to some extent through their 30s-early 40s.

OP, have you even read this site? Every hour people are making snarky comments about others…women who SAH, women who WOH, wives who gained weight, dads who work long hours, men who don’t earn high salaries, people who live in PG county, parents who send their kids to public school, people who enjoy vacations at Disney…the list goes on. Try having the self confidence to not care what random losers wasting time on the internet have to say about your choices.

It may not be what people want, but love often isn't rational

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, a 37-year-old woman, and many of the responders on the post about divorced dads (or dad's as she referred to them) acted as if men with children were somehow 'damaged goods', and she would do better elsewhere. How is that kind?

-Not a man

OP didn't act as if the dads were damaged goods she asked if it would be reasonable to be open to dating them. Not wanting to become a stepmom at a young age or wanting to deal with the complexities of a blended family is not the same thing as misogyny. Stop excusing misogyny.

No one wants to be a step-anything, let alone of three kids, to be fair. Male or female.

If that thread was of a man seeing a single woman with three kids I'd say the exact same thing - he could do better. Much better.