I’m 100% sure this is still happening. I could name countless people off the top of my head who fit this bill, of all ages.
Strongly disagree, in almost every case. Maybe we value different things in humans.
No-one here is trying to deny that men are attracted to good looking women, I don’t understand why you keep bringing it up.
This is again assuming that the only thing a man is interested in in a relationship is something nice to put his dick in. I think this is probably the root of the disconnect here.
I’m sure you can. But I like to talk about in a broad sense, and in a broad sense I don’t see it. Marriage is way down, child bearing is way down. When people do get married they do it much older, and have kids much older.
Yes, a lot of this is because both parents are working now and I find that to be a big problem. Before, 1 man could be making 80k and support his family. Now? You think both members may 80k each? Super rare, more like combined income of 80k, if even.
The system here in the states is fucking broken for the majority of people. It’s stunning to me that a lot of you do not see that.
Yeah, men are attracted to good looking but if a man is “settling” most of the time he’s settling in the looks department. I see this happening with younger guys at the gym ALL.THE.TIME.
I was talking in a broad sense too. In a broad sense, your observations do not match mine. Or even come close.
I don’t dispute any of these. Mostly because they’re completely irrelevant to the discussion as I understand it.
Strongly disagree again.
I don’t understand the socio economic situation in the states fully, so I won’t comment on this, however it seems a long way removed from your previous talk of “women should stop trying so hard to work and try harder to be pretty”. I don’t see the logical path you took from one to the other. Unless you’re simply pissed off at life and looking to vent.
Where are you from then? I’ve repeated multiple times that my assertions are based on what is happening in the United States.
You don’t see the path? It’s simple - society is trying to manipulate women in believing they are equal to men in every single facet of life, that they are built the same way and therefore can achieve and do the same things as their male counterparts.
Only this is not true and you see it in the workforce. Competent career driven women in their 20s, start to change in their 30s. They want to do less, work less, and want to have a family. This is the conundrum.
A lot of women end up being very unhappy with their situation at that point. No longer are they at their peak physical shape and then they want to dive head first into finding a man to marry and have kids with.
Like I’ve been saying, people are being fed a poor bill of goods. It’s another way corporate America Is assfucking the population into cheap labor. They’re doing this in the guise of women’s rights and equality, and a lot of you are going a long with it.
The consequence of this is being felt in the concept of the traditional family (by traditional I do not mean just man and women, I mean a two parent household). Instead of having a solid foundation of family, we get people relaying on more corporations for debt, for acceptance, and now even for identity. This is why you have so many corporate apologists these days, everything from fanboys defending movie studios to tech companies price gouging you while taking all your personal data.
I apologize if this sounds conspiratorial, I assure you it is not. It’s not the boogie man, It is society succumbing to corporate surveillance and manipulation on a grand scale. (oops, I’m sounding conspiratorial lol)
You’re transitioning from the age of being one of the cool happening people to a “kids these days…” except that instead of thinking that they are dumber, or pussies, or dumb pussies, you have a different focus.
You might even be right, but it doesn’t matter because you’ve aged out of the relevance pocket.
“Damn kids these days and their ugly girlfriends. GET OFF OF MY LAWN!”.
It’s nice and freeing to no longer be relevant. Some people complain about being invisible but it can be liberating to marinate in the fucks you don’t give.
These days, females outperform their male counterparts in many business fields, nearly all ‘emotion’ based fields (including education), and a hodgepodge of other work. You’re just applying useless factory logic to women workers.
You underestimating them is part of why millions of them are able to outperform you before lunch.
IE, have a career and be financially independent apart from the state before having children? Those monsters.
At least we got here quickly. I guess blaming corporate America is a hellava lot easier than just accepting that many people don’t agree with you on things.
In the age of blossoming teenage single moms, you really think women embracing the corporate workforce is the reason we don’t have solid foundations?
Fukin wot?
It’s probably just you, man. Own it and become overly sarcastic so people think you’re making jokes. It’ll help mask it.
It’s bad enough you’re a woman-hating armchair sociologist, but you’re a marxists as well. Figures.
In your simplistic worldview the biggest part of a man’s sex appeal is his ability to provide for a woman, yes?
Riddle me this: In what culture/period of history was it easiest for a low-born man to accumulate resources to impress potential female mates with?
If you answered the present day and Western developed nations then you’d be correct!
And while we’re talking about the decline of the nuclear family in the west… you just glossed over fiat currency and the welfare state. For women, child bearing and being the primary caregivers for children hurts their earning potential. So social programs are aimed at helping women and children. So if a manipulative woman is willing to raise children on welfare level income then she doesn’t need to lock the sperm donor down. The state can be her husband/provider.
In what psycho universe would it benefit businesses to decrease the population by disincentivising procreation? Why would they make such a conspiracy? Businesses need growth. That means they need more customers.
I could go on, but pearls before swine and all that.
I have no horse in this race but I’ve been skimming and you offer nothing but broad stroke generalizations with no proof other than what’s beyond your nose. Seems to me what you see is all there is.
Go pull some numbers or cite something with stats and a bibliography otherwise why should we take your word for it beyond “cuz I seen it”?
What does this even mean? They outperform in education? Yes, it is actually a problem that there aren’t more male educators. Maybe because it doesn’t pay as much? Those teachers tend to be moms and wives that the husband is the main provider in the family. Coincidence?
And let’s not even get into what is going on in schools across this country. Yes, women are outpacing men when it comes to good grades, and getting into college. However, the men that do go to college routinely outperform their female counterparts in almost every single field.
Born out of necessity.
Wasn’t expecting anyone here to agree with me.
Part of it, yes. Women are shunned, and ridiculed, especially by the media industry, entertainment industry when they are “stay at home” moms.
There’s always one guy that does this.
Standards are also much much higher. The balance is off.
Wonderful thinking here, almost an exact answer to pfury questioning the reason for single moms. Amazing.
Very rare for a corporation to think long like that, especially vs their immediate short term gains.
But gee golly Basement_Gainz has it nailed, they’d never! Nope, energy industries wouldn’t dare plunder the earth to the point where we may be dealing with a global catastrophe in half a century…
You have numbers, studies, surveys or even limericks to back this up?
Which offers a single variate oversimplified explanation of what may be driving the decline in nuclear families. It still doesn’t support anything you’ve said.
It’s very rare for a company to deploy capital, planning and strategy without figuring out their ROI or NPV of the investment. If they were to hatch a “conspiracy” to ruin relations between men and women in the west there would need to be a payoff. Preventing couples from pair bonding and having children offers no returns on any time horizon. They have no incentive to do that.
Dude, what are you talking about. I already pointed out a great example to you. Did oil companies say “fuck the planet, lets burn this shit to the ground” no, I do not think they did. So, no it isn’t intentional, or some grand conspiracy.
But they knew what was happening way before anyone else did, way before this was a conversational topic and a political fight. They knew, and they did nothing. Profits > over everything. This is how they work. This his how they are built.
Just like I don’t think companies consciously rip up the underlining fabric of American families.
Go anywhere that a topic like this is discussed and there will always be a similar comment dismissing all the points simply as people ‘hating women’ or whatever nonsense.