Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the women I’ve seen who vault to the top do so in pursuit of a lifestyle and $ it becomes clear the man isn’t as ambitious to provide if it didn’t just come easily to him. (That is, the man will often be satisfied with good enough/enough money and family balance). Some of them married men hoping they would play this role and when they didn’t or chose not to the women took it on.

I’m a woman who has a really lucrative career and my husband’s fizzled out mid career. The explanation is much simpler - I am deeply anxious of a terrible financial tragedy and he is not.

Anonymous wrote:This is certainly true in my case. Soon to be Ex-DH out-earned me significantly when we got married and in our early years. Yet, he has been completely incapable of preserving through any type of adversity resulting in significant career decline. Meanwhile, I had to lean in to make up for his shortcomings and have excelled to a place I never thought possible career wise. I feel like I’ve continued to grow and mature and he’s stunted.

I know several marriages and divorces with similar circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are doing better than ever and yet still complaining about the "patriarchy". None of it makes sense.

You nailed it. None of it makes sense.
Women are doing better than men but are complaining about gender discrimination.

It does make sense. Most people, men or women, aren't in positions of power, but those in position of power are still largely men.

OP is saying that in her circle, she sees a lot of women who do better career wise than their men. That doesn't mean that they are at executive level, where again, it's mostly made up of men.

When OP says her friends' husbands aren't succeeding in there careers of course she means they are stuck as ICs not reaching upper management. What else can she mean?

It's hard to put my finger on it, but there's a contradiction in applauding her friends for succeeding outside their traditional gender role, but then criticizing their husbands for not succeeding in theirs. Why should men still be measured that way, but no one can suggest maybe OPs friends just aren't attractive enough to bag an ambitious man?

Anonymous wrote:Many of the women I’ve seen who vault to the top do so in pursuit of a lifestyle and $ it becomes clear the man isn’t as ambitious to provide if it didn’t just come easily to him. (That is, the man will often be satisfied with good enough/enough money and family balance). Some of them married men hoping they would play this role and when they didn’t or chose not to the women took it on.

Anonymous wrote:I agree completely, OP. I love men, but they’re a disappointing lot in general.‘I’m grateful for the exceptional ones I know but most are truly lackluster and uninspiring.

Anonymous wrote:This is not meant to be a man bashing post. I’ve just had an observation of her last few years across multiple groups of friends from childhood to high school to college to grad school to family.

Now that we’re in our mid 40s/50s, I’ve noticed across my own experience and that have many of my friends that the men they married are just simply uninspiring compared to the women.

We are all college educated professionals who were thriving in our 20s. But you look back over the last 20 years and I find that these women have been courageous and grown and taken risks and succeeded, and the men have just stumbled and overall been disappointing.

Compared to the women -

1) more job losses / career instability (not due to sector)
2) more mental health issues like crippling anxiety, gambling addiction
3) fewer job risks that paid off
4) less “creation” - community, memory building,
5) more needing to be catered too / accommodated
6) Contribute less financially to the families. The women’s careers have boomed. More men seem stuck in their jobs - full of complaints but not willing/able to do anything about it. And they are not the primary bread winners even so they’re not just sucking it up for the greater good.
7) no generational caregiving

I never would’ve predicted this in our 20s when people were pairing off and starting their lives together. It’s just very surprising how often this is the dynamic that has unfolded given the leg up men have in society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are doing better than ever and yet still complaining about the "patriarchy". None of it makes sense.

You nailed it. None of it makes sense.
Women are doing better than men but are complaining about gender discrimination.

It does make sense. Most people, men or women, aren't in positions of power, but those in position of power are still largely men.

OP is saying that in her circle, she sees a lot of women who do better career wise than their men. That doesn't mean that they are at executive level, where again, it's mostly made up of men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I generally agree with you OP and I am far from a man-hater. In fact I love my young adult son more than anything on the planet. I wish I knew what was fueling this problem so we, his parents, could provide guidance to avoid pitfalls. I will say that his superstar-on-paper father did crash and burn in his 40s, torpedoing his BigJob trajectory (never to recover), wallowing in anxiety depression that he still refuses to acknowledge and of course, having an affair.

I want my son to never experience any of that.

If I had a son, I would encourage him to become a transgender and avoid that fate. Problem solved. Men have lost it.

Become transgender. Not become a transgender. It's a descriptor, not an object. A transgender person, not a transgender. Similarly: a gay person, not "a gay"; a Black person, not "a black".

Not gonna get into the obvious flaws with the rest of your point, but you can have the grammar lesson for free.

You do understand the construct PP used was deliberate, right? I am quite certain he doesn’t need the grammar lesson.