Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

You totally missed the point. Social security and Medicare are a pyramid scheme. We need lots of workers to be paying for few elderly. Tons of elderly and few workers? That means it would run out of money.

So being a baby factory is supposed to cure the deficiencies in Social security and Medicare? Says no woman ever. Even the Chinese aren't having children, and they are way more collectivistic than Americans.

It’s not that people should go and have babies that they don’t want, it’s just that it’s going to be a natural consequence that social security and Medicare won’t be able to fund all of the elderly people. There will also probably not be enough nursing home and hospital workers to manage the elderly population. As for the Chinese, they now realize they messed up with the one-child policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jan/27/women-child-free-30-ons

More than half (50.1%) of women in England and Wales born in 1990 were without a child when they turned 30 in 2020, the first generation to do so, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
That is almost three times higher than the lowest number of women ever to be child-free at 30 – 17.9% of those born in 1941.
At the same time the average number of children women have by the time they reach 30 has fallen to its lowest-ever level (0.96).

Not surprising. I’m American, and many of the younger women in my office are single and childless. In fact, lots of the older ones are, too.

Maybe it’s the SATC effect? Throw yourself into your career and live your best life in the city.

Plenty of studies point to younger generations as being less sexually active, right?

Plus: money. Families are $$$$$.

Lastly: social media has enabled many people to become introverts.

Yes, Sex and the City convinced women to be childless. Jesus.

Sounds like they are actually thinking things through before making the biggest decision of their lives. Yay for them!

Life is expensive. Men suck. The end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

It’s both genders.

I am a pp that said people should open up their grandparents’ yearbooks from the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

The vast majority of people look presentable and “procreatable”

In 2022, you can right off the bat disregard half the population of both genders as unacceptable.

Looks are not the reason women can’t find quality partners. Women previously needed a man’s salary, but now it’s less important (unless you want to SAH). Men needed women to run the home and raise children. Women stepped up their game, but many men have not. Just look at all the posts about DHs who don’t carry their share of the physical load or mental load or both. Women want a partner, not another child. They want one attractive to them which does not necessarily mean like a 50s high school student on class picture day.

exactly.. I'm the PP who mentioned women have stepped up their game. I wasn't referring to looks but about achieving more. Women are getting educated at a higher rate than men. They still earn less, but many have and want careers, and can make decent money on their own. Other than to procreate and have a life partner, women don't *need* man like they used to for financial reasons.

Having kids is not only expensive but very stressful if both parents work, and women bear the brunt of the stressors at home more. Why on earth would a woman choose to do this ? I don't see men making that choice?

This is part of the reason why there are now incels. This was not a word when I was in my 20s (I'm 50), though yes, there were some men who couldn't get any, but it was as common as it is today for a variety of reasons. You certainly didn't have incels shooting up places that women tend to congregate in like a yoga studio.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

I don’t think most women have upped their game at all.

I think elite tier women have, yes

But your average flyover woman was WAY more attractive 60 years ago.

Men have dropped their game also — agreed.

As problematic as this post is, I agree somewhat. Not only because of weight - but also because of fakeness. Way too many Kardashian-type fake body parts and overly made up Instagram wannabe looks. People in the past were more naturally beautiful.

Speaking for myself, I’m conventionally attractive, but I think more by a modern standard than traditional beauty. I’m big into fitness and weightlifting. Not as traditionally feminine as women 60 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

I don’t think most women have upped their game at all.

I think elite tier women have, yes

But your average flyover woman was WAY more attractive 60 years ago.

Men have dropped their game also — agreed.

Late 20s PP. I'll agree with you there; traveling to other parts of the country is very eye-opening. Not being overweight alone makes you stand out.

There are plenty of thin people elsewhere and fat people here in the dmv. Weight correlates with income and mental health issues. Be grateful you’re skinny and not in the same situation as those folks. You stand out cause you’re educated and rich, aka privileged. Be kind.

Men in 1930s breadlines looked more attractive than your average dc male under 40.

This has nothing to do with income or mental health.

Yes, men should just quit their jobs and become emaciated. That’s what really attracts a woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

I don’t think most women have upped their game at all.

I think elite tier women have, yes

But your average flyover woman was WAY more attractive 60 years ago.

Men have dropped their game also — agreed.

Late 20s PP. I'll agree with you there; traveling to other parts of the country is very eye-opening. Not being overweight alone makes you stand out.

There are plenty of thin people elsewhere and fat people here in the dmv. Weight correlates with income and mental health issues. Be grateful you’re skinny and not in the same situation as those folks. You stand out cause you’re educated and rich, aka privileged. Be kind.

Men in 1930s breadlines looked more attractive than your average dc male under 40.

This has nothing to do with income or mental health.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

I don’t think most women have upped their game at all.

I think elite tier women have, yes

But your average flyover woman was WAY more attractive 60 years ago.

Men have dropped their game also — agreed.

Late 20s PP. I'll agree with you there; traveling to other parts of the country is very eye-opening. Not being overweight alone makes you stand out.

There are plenty of thin people elsewhere and fat people here in the dmv. Weight correlates with income and mental health issues. Be grateful you’re skinny and not in the same situation as those folks. You stand out cause you’re educated and rich, aka privileged. Be kind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

You totally missed the point. Social security and Medicare are a pyramid scheme. We need lots of workers to be paying for few elderly. Tons of elderly and few workers? That means it would run out of money.

Thank god for COVID. Few more years of variants circulating and we won’t have to worry about too many elderly anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

It’s both genders.

I am a pp that said people should open up their grandparents’ yearbooks from the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

The vast majority of people look presentable and “procreatable”

In 2022, you can right off the bat disregard half the population of both genders as unacceptable.

Looks are not the reason women can’t find quality partners. Women previously needed a man’s salary, but now it’s less important (unless you want to SAH). Men needed women to run the home and raise children. Women stepped up their game, but many men have not. Just look at all the posts about DHs who don’t carry their share of the physical load or mental load or both. Women want a partner, not another child. They want one attractive to them which does not necessarily mean like a 50s high school student on class picture day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

I don’t think most women have upped their game at all.

I think elite tier women have, yes

But your average flyover woman was WAY more attractive 60 years ago.

Men have dropped their game also — agreed.

Late 20s PP. I'll agree with you there; traveling to other parts of the country is very eye-opening. Not being overweight alone makes you stand out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the problem? Have you seen the show 'Call the Midwives'? Do you know how our grandmothers suffered bearing children they didn't plan for? Celebrate the fact that women have autonomy and access to birth control instead of going "Horror! These baby factories refuse to work!"

I don’t think a lot of people are wringing their hands, but there social and economic consequences when people have fewer children.

It will be tough for this generation while there are so many elderly people without enough young people to support them. After that, fewer people in the world will be a good thing.

But young people don't really support elderly people to begin with. How many young people do you know wipe an elderly person's butt? Or support them financially? Having children in the hope they will care for you is really messed up.

You totally missed the point. Social security and Medicare are a pyramid scheme. We need lots of workers to be paying for few elderly. Tons of elderly and few workers? That means it would run out of money.

So being a baby factory is supposed to cure the deficiencies in Social security and Medicare? Says no woman ever. Even the Chinese aren't having children, and they are way more collectivistic than Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

absolutely. Women have upped their game over the years. Many men... not so much. They think they should be able to get any attractive woman just because they have a pulse and a job. A woman doesn't want to marry a man-baby.

I don’t think most women have upped their game at all.

I think elite tier women have, yes

But your average flyover woman was WAY more attractive 60 years ago.

Men have dropped their game also — agreed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen their options? I get it

I am late twenties, single, and child-free. I am not single/child-free because I wanted to focus on my career, casually hookup, and party it up in my 20s. I always wanted to get married young and family is important to me. However, I have not found a quality partner in this area who is attractive to me and treats me well and shares my values. I think I would prefer to be alone than to be with a man who treats me poorly and whose character I don't respect.

I don't think women are the only part of this equation. My peers and I wish we had more decent options.

It’s both genders.

I am a pp that said people should open up their grandparents’ yearbooks from the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

The vast majority of people look presentable and “procreatable”

In 2022, you can right off the bat disregard half the population of both genders as unacceptable.