It’s irrelevant how many hours he works at the office unless it correlates to higher pay.

It seems like some people in this conversation just went to argue for the sake of arguing.
The fact is everyone is able to determine what is beneficial to them and a good deal in life.
The fact is that more and more women are viewing marriage as an opportunity deal. Especially true for women who are high earners or who are self-sufficient and don't see the men that they're dating is bringing anything to the table that they don't already have.
If men don't like that, they can either step up their game to show that they do have something to offer that is worthwhile or sit down and shut up and find someone who wants what you're selling.
Most men still do not do half of household tasks even though both partners work outside the house. Now I'm not going to get into the weeds and say well if he works an hour more in the office each week. She should do an hour more of housework each week because that's for each individual. Couple to decide. But the fact remains that if you pulled most women in marriages and asked what the division of labor is in their house and if it is equitable not equal but equitable they would say no that they do the lion's share. Further, if you get a neutral third party to look at the amount of mental and physical labor each person provides in the household, I am certain that women will be still carrying the bulk share.

Now my husband does plenty to help out but there is no way he's at 50% of household tasks. He possibly got close before we had kids but after kids we're looking at around 25% overall. Now right now that works for us because my job is more flexible and I'm able to work 30 hours a week. This division works for our family for now, but if I were to get a different job and we're working 40 hours a week, I can tell you that his 25% would not be near good enough.

I hate to tell you I’ve already achieved my optimal outcome— I’m married to a top 10% man who believes fundamentally that he has to contribute equally or more in all areas of our lives just as I do. I contributed more to gestating and delivering our children. He contributes more income. We both wash dishes. I don’t know who is a “mediocre” woman in your model, because I have never met a woman who didn’t get sexual attention from men if she wanted it. So all women will retain the option to reproduce.

This does not add up.

If he were in the top 10%, he would need a job such as a law partner or doctor, which would make him part of the working wealthy. And to stay within the 10%, he would not be washing dishes (or doing so on a very infrequent basis.) He would be working more than 60 hours a week. I know because I do it.

Now he could contribute income, and you can contribute your uterus (for whatever it is worth), and you are happy with that; however, he would not be busting his guts at work to come home to bust suds for you.

Try again. And this time, try the truth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

Top 3% HHI is about $351k in 2022. If both of you are working in a HCOL locale, that sounds kinda mediocre—especially for dual Ivy degrees.

Bam! Came here to say the same thing. Leveraged top 0.1% of college education to get a top 3% income, made even lower by HCOL.

Mediocrity masquerading as meritocracy right before our eyes.

OFF TO THE WORK CAMP! Except your husband, he can apply for a stall at the sperm farm.

Top .4%

Try harder.

Ok, top 0.4% education (dual earners too!) only get an income in the top 3%. Yikes. Have you told your parents how far you’ve fallen? Do your friends know how low you rank in income earners?

Don’t worry, you’ll get the more desirable jobs at the camp - afterall, you are at the top end of mediocre. Congrats!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

Top 3% HHI is about $351k in 2022. If both of you are working in a HCOL locale, that sounds kinda mediocre—especially for dual Ivy degrees.

Bam! Came here to say the same thing. Leveraged top 0.1% of college education to get a top 3% income, made even lower by HCOL.

Mediocrity masquerading as meritocracy right before our eyes.

OFF TO THE WORK CAMP! Except your husband, he can apply for a stall at the sperm farm.

Top .4%

Try harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

Top 3% HHI is about $351k in 2022. If both of you are working in a HCOL locale, that sounds kinda mediocre—especially for dual Ivy degrees.

Bam! Came here to say the same thing. Leveraged top 0.1% of college education to get a top 3% income, made even lower by HCOL.

Mediocrity masquerading as meritocracy right before our eyes.

OFF TO THE WORK CAMP! Except your husband, he can apply for a stall at the sperm farm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

Sounds like you chose poorly or that he was the best option you had available at the time you wanted to get married and have children. Why would we draw any conclusions about marriage from someone who is, admittedly, bad at choosing a spouse or was willing to compromise on quality because of limited options?

Are you the same poster all upset that lower-quality men are being described as mediocre and women are being warned to have higher standards? If so could you please pick a lane?

No, that was my first post in the thread. I just think the women complaining about having a bad husband have already shown why their views shouldn't be considered. They either chose poorly, in which case we shouldn't really care about their insights, or they settled for the best they could get, which means that they aren't some saint deserving a better man, but rather, got the mediocrity they deserve.

So don’t listen to happy women saying don’t settle, and don’t listen to unhappy women saying don’t settle. Are there any women whose views you do respect?

No, it has nothing to do with happy or not. I would say that those who chose well (happy or not in life) probably have good insights on marriage. I was originally responding to someone who seems to have chosen poorly, so she probably doesn't add much value to the conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

Sounds like you chose poorly or that he was the best option you had available at the time you wanted to get married and have children. Why would we draw any conclusions about marriage from someone who is, admittedly, bad at choosing a spouse or was willing to compromise on quality because of limited options?

Are you the same poster all upset that lower-quality men are being described as mediocre and women are being warned to have higher standards? If so could you please pick a lane?

No, that was my first post in the thread. I just think the women complaining about having a bad husband have already shown why their views shouldn't be considered. They either chose poorly, in which case we shouldn't really care about their insights, or they settled for the best they could get, which means that they aren't some saint deserving a better man, but rather, got the mediocrity they deserve.

So don’t listen to happy women saying don’t settle, and don’t listen to unhappy women saying don’t settle. Are there any women whose views you do respect?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

Top 3% HHI is about $351k in 2022. If both of you are working in a HCOL locale, that sounds kinda mediocre—especially for dual Ivy degrees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband probably isn't in the top 10% but is above mediocre and if anything happen to him there is no way in hell I would ever remarry.
I really can't think of many positives. Marriage has brought me that I didn't have while we were dating. In fact, he was more fun when we were dating. Lol...

I am fully capable in financially stable enough to raise children on my own. I would feel badly for them that they did not have a father, but to be honest he's probably involved in 25% of what they do anyway.
I cook. I clean. I do the shopping. I work I go to the sporting events. He will drive them to practice. Yeah I think I could probably find someone to carpool with if anything happened to him. 🤪

Sounds like you chose poorly or that he was the best option you had available at the time you wanted to get married and have children. Why would we draw any conclusions about marriage from someone who is, admittedly, bad at choosing a spouse or was willing to compromise on quality because of limited options?

Are you the same poster all upset that lower-quality men are being described as mediocre and women are being warned to have higher standards? If so could you please pick a lane?

No, that was my first post in the thread. I just think the women complaining about having a bad husband have already shown why their views shouldn't be considered. They either chose poorly, in which case we shouldn't really care about their insights, or they settled for the best they could get, which means that they aren't some saint deserving a better man, but rather, got the mediocrity they deserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

I’m married with children. To a partner who also has an Ivy League degree and our HHI is the top 3%. There’s plenty you can say about us but we’re not mediocre.

Ah, mediocre means not-affluent, got it.

It does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

Truth hurts.

Delusional women keep insisting they only will settle for the top men. Now if you are a top woman (as defined by the "top" men and their preferences and not your raging narcissism) that strategy could work. But it can't work in general. It can't work for the overwhelming majority.

So this "never settle" and "you deserve better" is nothing but jingoistic claptrap that will leave a vast majority of people lonely and bitter. The vast majority of people will eventually want to have a family. And the biological fact for women is that after their twenties their odds of conceiving and starting a family start diminishing rapidly.

The crazy feminists in this thread cause more damage to women than any deranged misogynist ever could.

So…you think women should have children to start families. That is entirely possible without settling for a man. Whose interests do you think you’re serving?

And it's not that I think women need to have children. Most women after a certain age want to have children. And the ideology you peddle masquerading as good fath advice will leave the vast majority of those women lonely and bitter.

Why would mothers of wanted children be lonely and bitter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

Truth hurts.

Delusional women keep insisting they only will settle for the top men. Now if you are a top woman (as defined by the "top" men and their preferences and not your raging narcissism) that strategy could work. But it can't work in general. It can't work for the overwhelming majority.

So this "never settle" and "you deserve better" is nothing but jingoistic claptrap that will leave a vast majority of people lonely and bitter. The vast majority of people will eventually want to have a family. And the biological fact for women is that after their twenties their odds of conceiving and starting a family start diminishing rapidly.

The crazy feminists in this thread cause more damage to women than any deranged misogynist ever could.

So…you think women should have children to start families. That is entirely possible without settling for a man. Whose interests do you think you’re serving?

The children's interest for starters. Children of single mothers have statistically far worse outcomes than those raised by two parents -even accounting for resources.

And societies interest. Better adjusted children means fewer incarcerations, drug abuse, crime, etc.

But I'm certainly not a mouth piece for an ideology that is fundamentally anti social and leads to suffering. But by all means continue to advocate for your death cult.

You omit any care whatsoever for what is in the woman’s interest. This is an odd take for a thread about whether marriage is a good deal for…women. It seems like your conclusion is that it doesn’t matter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lol when people go on and on complaining about “radical feminists terminating their bloodline.” If you consider me a radical feminist, and I end up not having kids, wouldn’t that therefore be a good thing in your eyes? Since I’m not passing my evil ideology on after all.

That's not how ideologies reproduce. You are reproducing your ideology by advocating for it in this blog. But you're right that modern feminism is a death cult.

Correct. The idea reproduces by getting a hold of the impressionable minds of children and young people. Like older women going on and on about how heterosexual marriage is slavery** and how having freedom with cats and a passport is much better…like the 36 pages of this thread….

**What a completely batsh*t insane thing for, based on the site demographics, an almost certainly privileged affluent white/asian woman to say?!!?!

I’m not advocating for cats and a passport for anyone (except someone who wants that) I advocate for extremely high quality donor sperm from highly attractive and accomplished men, and financial independence to raise a family over partnership with a mediocre man who you have to support, clean up after, and in a divorce lose your children 50% of the time to.

S let me get this straight, you’re divorcing someone bc they won’t do 50% of the childcare but then complaining when they legally receive 50% of the childcare?

I’m not divorcing anyone because, as I’ve said, I applied rigorously high standards to my choice of a spouse despite the DCUM logic that women should be happy with anyone.

You don’t have to divorce anyone if you choose a spouse who expects to contribute OR you forgo a spouse entirely and thereby don’t lose any custody to your kids.

I've said a few weeks ago that I suspect your real purpose in starting this thread was to brag about your marital fortunes. You mention your husband's perfection at every opportunity. I suppose this is the right forum for it. Where else, eh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

what do you think the vociferous defense of mediocre men boils down to? Either women can have high standards, and insist on partners who contribute in all areas of life, or we can’t. Personally I say that we should, and if such partners aren’t available we shouldn’t settle.

The problem is that you are mediocre and do not realize it.

Post all you want about how you will "never settle." However, if you were truthful you would also write about no one wanting to settle for you.

Truth hurts.

Delusional women keep insisting they only will settle for the top men. Now if you are a top woman (as defined by the "top" men and their preferences and not your raging narcissism) that strategy could work. But it can't work in general. It can't work for the overwhelming majority.

So this "never settle" and "you deserve better" is nothing but jingoistic claptrap that will leave a vast majority of people lonely and bitter. The vast majority of people will eventually want to have a family. And the biological fact for women is that after their twenties their odds of conceiving and starting a family start diminishing rapidly.

The crazy feminists in this thread cause more damage to women than any deranged misogynist ever could.

So…you think women should have children to start families. That is entirely possible without settling for a man. Whose interests do you think you’re serving?

And it's not that I think women need to have children. Most women after a certain age want to have children. And the ideology you peddle masquerading as good fath advice will leave the vast majority of those women lonely and bitter.