Never marrieds piling up

Badger’s outstanding post “29/31″: A Time-Travel Video About The Wall had me wanting to see if the 2011 Census data was out.  I was in luck, but it doesn’t look good for the ladies hoping to leap from the carousel into marriage.

In the past I’ve shown ten year snapshots side by side.  This time I decided to see what the yearly trend looks like for the key age brackets.  All data presented is for White Non-Hispanic women in the US.  Other races and/or countries will look different.  I have been focusing on White women because this avoids the possibility of racial demographic shifts adding confusion, and the vast bulk of the “will I be able to marry?” hand-wringing in the media is coming from White women.  If anyone wants to compile this for another race or country please let me know and I’ll link to it.

When I considered the possibility of a marriage strike two years ago I angered a number of readers for not being convinced*.  Some readers even accused me and/or the US Census of fudging the data.  At the time the trend of reduced marriage rates was very clear for women under 35, but it wasn’t there for women 35 and over.  2009 was the most recent year data was available then, and as you can see from the chart above the percent of never married 35-39 year olds went up by only 0.8% between 1999 and 2009.  In the last two years it has gone up dramatically from 11.8% to 14%.  At the same time, the trends for the younger age brackets have all continued as well**.  While we still can’t know for certain how all of this will be resolved, the more data that comes in the worse it looks for women planning on pulling the marriage ripcord at the last minute.

It is hard to say how much of the recent trend is driven by the economic downturn since 2008.  However, the problem for the women who delayed marriage until the last minute is they don’t have the flexibility of time.  Their fertility, youth, and beauty don’t care about the business cycle.

The compounding problem which seems likely is that as they and their peers become more urgent in their search for a husband, the power in the marriage market could shift from women to men.  Consider the real estate bubble in places like Southern California a decade ago.  Buyers who found the home they wanted would offer asking price or at times above asking price out of fear that someone else would snatch their dream home out from under them.  However, once the bubble burst the psychology reversed, and now sellers are the ones urgent about closing the deal.

The makings of a possible spinster panic would seem to come from the way the flow of would be brides is backing up in the pipeline.  Late 30s is the absolute last minute for women to expect to marry and have children.  From what we have seen the husband panic tends to set in during the late 20s to very early 30s.  This makes the recent rise in never married 35-39 year olds striking.  The picture below takes a closer look at the recent trend for women in their 30s:

Note the relationship between the data points in the green and blue ovals.  The women in their late 30s today are the same women we have data for in their early 30s five years prior.  What the respective trends in the circled areas show is that in the last few years the rate of marriage for mid 30s women has been declining.  This must be the case because when we look at these same cohorts five years prior they all started with roughly the same levels of marriage.

What should make this albeit short trend alarming for marriage delayers is that there is also a dramatic increase of younger never married women making their way through the pipe.  Imagine never married women in their thirties as water in a bucket.  At the bottom of the bucket there is a hole (marriage), and at the top is a pipe pouring additional unmarried women in each year.  The hole in the bottom of the bucket has become constricted, and we know that the flow filling the bucket will be increasing based on the increasing numbers of unmarried women in their late 20s.

*I’m still not convinced what we are seeing is driven primarily by men deliberately avoiding marriage.  I can’t prove this either way, but my own sense is that it is being driven initially by young women deliberately postponing marriage.  This movement to delay marriage by women has had unintended consequences.  Part of the group of men they would traditionally have married have registered the lack of interest by young women in marriage and have not seen the incentive to do the hard work to put themselves in a position to be a provider.  Additionally, as men get older their SMV increases, especially in their late 20s and early 30s.  At some point for many men marrying an ageing carouseler/career woman seems to become less attractive than sticking it out in the dating market with their own rising SMV.

** I left off the 20-24 age bracket from the chart above because it changes the scale, making it more difficult to see the trend for the older ages.  You can see the same chart with the younger group included here.

See Also:  Committed to the trail

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Choice Addiction, Data, Finding a Spouse, Foolishness. Bookmark the permalink.

203 Responses to Never marrieds piling up

  1. Mojo says:

    “I’m still not convinced what we are seeing is driven primarily by men deliberately avoiding marriage. I can’t prove this either way, but my own sense is that it is being driven initially by young women deliberately postponing marriage. This movement to delay marriage by women has had unintended consequences. Part of the group of men they would traditionally have married have registered the lack of interest by young women in marriage and have not seen the incentive to do the hard work to put themselves in a position to be a provider.”

    This is actually how I always understood the ‘marriage strike’. The small number of men actually familiar with the term ‘marriage strike’ and talking about it online are merely the vanguard, attempting to spread the message. But I always saw the ‘strike’ as an unintentional phenomenon. As you put it, the weakened signal.

  2. Darlock, great post. I’m curious how this data compares to men of the same age brakets. Is there a larger percentage of unmarried men in the same age bracket? I personally don’t believe that there’s a marriage strike out there, but I have definitely seen male peers delaying and dating/marrying much younger women. Several of my close friends have begun dating women 5 – 6 years their junior in the last year. Most seem headed towards marriage. Obviously as our SMV rises as we age, we have a much larger pool of available women across lower age brackets. Are our spinster counter parts seeing a decline in the number of available men in their age bracket? To me that would be hard evidence to reinforce the error of their ways.

  3. The moral godless says:

    “The compounding potential problem which seems likely is that as they and their peers become more urgent in their search for a husband, the power in the marriage market could shift from women to men.”

    I don’t normally lack imagination, but for some reason I’m having trouble conceptualizing what this means. The power differential in any relationship is ALWAYS with the woman because she can always use the nuclear option of a false assault or domestic violence accusation. And even besides the nuclear option, her community and close associates will take her side the majority of the time.

  4. The moral godless

    There are different kinds of power. Not all of it legal. Also, men have always had laws stacked against them, one way or another. Society has always put more responsibility on men. Laws tp protect women infantilise them.

  5. Chris says:

    Some of this is a consequnce of feminist careerism affecting women. They have spent their 20s and 30s working. Not dating. Working. With an assumption that a man will just fall from the sky. They then find themselves on OKC or POF at 40 single… and wondering why replying selectively does not work.

  6. Chris, one of the reasons feminist memes are powerful is that they are simple to state. It is far easier to have a slogan like “girls should do what boys do” than to patiently explain why that is a bad idea, and why it leads to cats (I like cats, but that is the shorthand). I don’t know what OKC and POF are, BTW.

    I think I actually saw some women hurtling towards cats, even in my day. It seemed to be the more attractive women who were putting off settling down. Probably overconfident.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    I cannot offhand think of any way to separate out from your data the effects of any putative marriage strike by men vs. choice addiction by women. But I can argue anecdotally that women who endlessly put off any serious marriage search for “later on, when I’m settled” are as you pointed out in the “signalling” article clearly telling men to forget about marrying them.

    Some men will take a woman at her word. I can recall years ago being told by a woman that “Susie” really wanted to go out with me, to which I would retort that I’d asked “Susie” out and she’d turned me down. The response to that basically was “Oh, well, she expects you to show how much you want to go out with her by asking more than once”. Even as a man in my 20′s I had no patience with that kind of game, although clearly other men didn’t have a problem with it. Because it clearly signalled some degree of emotional manipulation from the start. Plus I was “taking women seriously”….

    Now I’m imaging “Susie” at the age of 31, after playing that “if you really want my attention you have to ask for it more than once” game for 10+ years. It’s not a pretty sight. Now imagine a man who encounters variations on that theme over and over for years – at the age of 30+ he may not be done with women, but it could well be he’s done with women on any terms other than his own.

    And that brings up a sub-theme, one that IMO really needs to be trumpeted more in the androsphere than it is now. With all the risks marriage offers to men, women really need to bring more to the table than sex. As a man, I want sex. But in the context of marriage, there has to be absolute loyalty, and frankly there needs to be a lot of other adult properties – self control, a future-time orientation, and some skills other than hot bed-fun-time. Like money management, an ability to clean house, an ability to dress to go out in fewer than 3 hours, etc.

    Again, I can’t separate out the factors, but they clearly are mutually reinforcing.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    DC, OKC is OK Cupid, one of the social media dating sites / meat-markets.
    There have been a few men around the web who have posted their experience in using such sites;
    PUA’s find them useful, men who want a trustworthy female companion….not so much.

    Feminist slogans, like many Marxist slogans, have a power initially. Reality has a way of pruning back that power – “Workers of the world unite” was not so impressive after a few tens of millions of workers had been killed in various ways, for example.

    “Men and women are not the same” is a slogan that we should be reading more in the future.

  9. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Also, men have always had laws stacked against them, one way or another.”

    No, laws have changed drastically. But certainly among people of the anglosphere who think they aren’t dealing with feminism (when you discuss the way the women in your family talk, it makes me think you don’t really know what the absence of feminism is), the laws have been bad as long as they’ve been alive.

  10. I’d be curious to see these stories about OKC from men’s perspective. As an internet dater, I can tell you it’s both a scary place and great resource. Generally attractive women think they have endless options on these dating sites and will quickly jump from one guy to the next. Others are simply there to gage their SMV. And finally the rest are the dregs/liars, overweight women desperate for a date. But generally I’ve found it a decent way to meet people and at the very least, practice your dating skills.

  11. Joe, I don’t understand your remark in parenthesis.

  12. zorroprimo says:

    I’m 51, never married, and I’d rather put a gun in my mouth than give a woman the chance to drag me into Family Court for a financial slaughtering.

    Never. Ever.

  13. Joe Sheehy says:

    Here’s a heaping scoop of hamster feed, anti-male propaganda and misinformation:

    http://yahoo.match.com/y/article.aspx?articleid=11865&TrackingID=526103&BannerID=1338500

  14. Joe Sheehy says:

    DC, I’m thinking of the way your mother in law mentioned your daughter’s age. In my experience of their comments, the women of the anglosphere tend to be tactless and to take feminism for granted, even more than American women.

    The film Alfie was set in England after all.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    ShortBachelor, if I remember rightly Badger blogged about online dating sometime in the last year. But I might not be remembering correctly.

  16. Joe, yes. That was out of character, and shocked and irritated me. She is in her 80s though.

    I live in Australia. I don’t find it a feminist country, though some men do.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @The moral godless

    I don’t normally lack imagination, but for some reason I’m having trouble conceptualizing what this means. The power differential in any relationship is ALWAYS with the woman because she can always use the nuclear option of a false assault or domestic violence accusation. And even besides the nuclear option, her community and close associates will take her side the majority of the time.

    I’m talking about something different, the relative degree to which men and women feel urgency to marry/commit. Right now women feel so much power in the dating and marriage market that they deliberately put off marriage, many even rejecting men they later acknowledge would have made an outstanding husband. Based on the experiences of the women slightly older than them it isn’t hard to understand why. 90% of white women currently 40 and over have married at least once. That is a huge percentage. Younger women looked at this and assumed marriage was theirs for the taking. The fact that so many of their peers were also delaying marriage also made them more comfortable doing so.

    I point back to the analogy of the boom years for real estate. Sellers could afford to be cocky; if you didn’t buy it, someone else would. The buyer started all over, but now with a higher price since the market was moving against him. Buyers and sellers both learned this and acted accordingly. Now however it is the other way around. Sellers are afraid that if they don’t sell now they will have to sell for less later. As a consequence buyers are emboldened by their newfound “hand” in the real estate market. I’m saying the same thing could happen for men and women. Right now many men are looking at their limited options and hoping a North American Tanbellied Cockhopper will do him the honour of marrying him. If word gets out that there is no way all of these women delaying marriage can all find husbands, suddenly that same man could find several women chasing after him. Now all of a sudden he might be thinking Why marry now?, why not do the boyfriend thing until she gives me an ultimatum, and then start over with another one? The more men who decide to do this, the more others will follow (just like happened with women).

  18. Johnycomelately says:

    I think 2000 was when the bromance culture kicked in and a sizeable proportion of the delayed marriages could be the most desireable young men (with good disposable income) living it up and looking not to settle. It’s not as if all young men are throwing themselves at marriage, the law of unintended consequences may be at work here.

    The desireable young men I know with good looks, game and established professional careers are making out like bandits, they don’t want to be lumped with children and mortgages and are jettisoning their careers for adventure. They’re foregoing the cubicle farms and are snow boarding in Chile, trekking across South America, going on sports tours, living it up in Thailand, back packing across Europe etc.

    Roosh seems to be an archetype of this type of new man.

  19. freebird says:

    My brother got married and divorced twice,myself never married at 48, and never,ever,ever, will.
    I suppose statistically we’re evened out tho,the pussy beggars run through multiples.
    BTW_ I have my own home and bro does not,he tried to live here and sponge offa me-no way Jose’.
    Damn reprobate.

  20. A♠ says:

    To the women who say “I don’t need a man!”, I reply:

    Don’t worry.

    You won’t get one.

  21. Pirran says:

    “It is hard to say how much of the recent trend is driven by the economic downturn since 2008.”

    I think the blue line says it all (25-29). The rate of women never marrying in that age group increased by 7 percentage points BEFORE the economic tsunami hit in 2008 (From 35.1% to 42.2%). That’s an increase of over 20% in less than a decade in times of prosperity and tends to confirm what I’ve thought for a while; there is a seismic shift in the way men under 30 view marriage and LTR’s (hence shows like “Girls” and the incessant whining of Churchian White Knight’s and cynical pastors trying to chuck guys under the bus for the Churchy wimminz).

    I don’t believe it’s just women under 30 putting off marriage; I think something has fundamentally changed. That top line looks like a Man Up meltdown.

  22. greenlander says:

    Roosh seems to be an archetype of this type of new man.

    When a man is successful and gets to a certain point in life, he can start to write his own rules.

    I moved to Eastern Europe about six weeks ago and I plan to stay here indefinitely. It took a bit of planning but it’s all working out and I’m much happier here. I don’t ever want to go back to the United States. I’m not homesick at all.

    Guys who have never been abroad don’t realize how much American culture is steeped in feminist BS. You have to get out of it and experience another culture to really understand how messed up it is.

  23. MNL says:

    >I can’t prove this either way, but my own sense is that it is being driven initially by young women deliberately postponing marriage.

    Yes you can, D. Just look at the trend in average age at first marriage for men vs. women:

    http://www.wisegeek.com/how-has-the-average-age-at-marriage-changed-over-time.htm
    http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/marrage.html
    http://marriage.about.com/od/statistics/a/medianage.htm

    While the avg. age at first marriage has drifting up for both men and women over the past few decades, it’s been drifting up MORE STEEPLY for women. Unless we invoke the odd explanation (i.e., hamster logic) whereby it’s due to men all of a sudden preferring older, tread-worn brides over younger ones, the best explanation is that the declining marriage rate among young women is indeed more driven “by young women deliberately postponing marriage.”

  24. MNL says:

    But wait there’s more…

    One can run statistical tests to determine whether it’s women vs. men who are more likely driving the postponing of first marriage–and it points to women who are more responsible for the delay.

    I won’t belabor the details, but one can apply a test of Granger causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality) on the “age at first marriage” data I referenced above. In brief, the test looks at whether women vs. men are more likely leading the delay in first marriage. It turns out that men’s rise in age at first marriage is lagging women’s (more than the other way around). That is, women’s postponing of first marriage is more likely causing men to delay first marriage–as opposed to men initiating the postponing.

    To be fair, there are no doubt other drivers (e.g., economics) impacting both men’s AND women’s mutual delay. But there’s a component wherein men’s delay at first marriage is indeed more in response to women’s delay (than women responding to men). Women are more the gatekeepers in this regard.

  25. Anonymous Reader says:

    We should all bear in mind that the “ever married” figures for women over 40 are largely from 10 to 20 years ago. They are from a slightly different country: 20 years ago, VAWA had not yet had full effect, the GirlsGoneWild videos didn’t yet exist, internet porn was typically gifs / jpegs or text stories on newsgroups. So when we look at those numbers, we are looking into the past, not the future.

    Now 40% or more of births are to never married women. That is also a different country. A mere 5 years from now, I am all but certain that the “never married” woman numbers will be even worse than they are today.

    What does a marriage strike look like? It doesn’t look like men picketing the state capitol with signs, nor does it look like men yelling at women on street corners, nor does it look like grim men on TV shows reciting facts, figures and statistics. Nope. It isn’t visible in any of those senses. It looks like men who keep to themselves, who go out with their buddies on the tuna fishing cruise, it looks like men who have a series of LTR’s with women in their early 30′s but who never commit. It looks like men who are amateur astronomers, who are heavily involved in various online gaming, or other hobbies. It looks like greenlander, roosh and others quietly leaving North America.

    It’s not visible outside of the androsphere, except in the form of ever increasing numbers of never-married women. So don’t be surprised if the leading edge women’s magazines start up with articles on how it’s really no big deal to be a mother who never was married and never will be. Strong, independent wimmenz with Moxie are doing it! And ordinary wimmenz can, too!
    Don’t be surprised.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    MNL, gold star for bringing up that causality test.

  27. Alphas, betas, omegas. What a silly way to characterize people. I say it’s time to grow up.
    What does that mean?
    And no, I’m not in the least impressed by your limited knowledge of firearms. Nor do I give a hoot about your feelings. Get a grip.

  28. Twenty says:

    Is “Taqiyya” Arabic for “Markov chain“?

  29. infowarrior1 says:

    Sorry dalrock offtopic but you will love this:
    Jesse lee peterson on liberal women:

  30. Johnycomelately says:

    If the 80/20 rule holds true and it is a given that the sexual market is heriarchically stratified, what impact do alphas holding out or multi partnering have on assortive mating?

    If the bulk of women are bidding for a scarce resource (alphas), doesn’t it hold that alpha behaviour is a significant driver behind mate formation?

    If 10% of alphas are driving the behaviour of 40% of women and the remaining 60% of women are driving the behaviour of the rest of the 90% of men, then isn’t unrestrained alpha behaviour driving delayed marriage?

    As much as traditional marriage reigned in hyperagamy, it also controlled mate predation by alphas.

  31. lavazza1891 says:

    Since you like linking to words and expressions, you might link to Solomon’s The marriage zone from the “at some point” here:

    “At some point for many men marrying an ageing carouseler/career woman seems to become less attractive than sticking it out in the dating market with their own rising SMV.”

  32. Women have priced themselves out of the market. Hypergamy dictates that women want only one man, the best (to quote Roger Devlin). Their problem is that the average good guy has been humiliated by feminism, and, to compound the problem, women are now exposed to more men, so their expectations are raised. A man sees a thousand beautiful, unattainable girls in his life, and quickly realises they will never adorn his bed. But a woman never learns the same lesson, mutatis mutandis.

    This is something I wrote a while back:

    http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/the-supernormal-stimulus/

  33. lavazza1891 says:

    I think one indication of the (unconcious) marriage strike is the push from women to get laws that facilitate single motherhood. In Sweden only the Christian Democrats are opposing the introduction of allowing anonymous sperm donation to single women now.

    Another indicator to look at might be if the age difference at marriage between men and women is increasing, meaning women have to look for older guys to have the chance to settle.

    But then again marriage does not give the whole picture, at least not in countries like Sweden where a a lot of people only cohabitate but might marry much later (to the same person) often after having a couple of kids.

    I don’t know who might gather that type of data, but i would be very interesting to see at what age people who get married and/or have children became a couple.

    And lastly, if I understand the figures correctly they show that only 35-45 % of non-married women have become married 5 years later, which should be alarming to women, if getting married in that mid long term is their objective.

  34. lavazza1891 says:

    David Collard: Having had superstimulus experiences does not necessarily mean that people want more of it and/or find lesser stimulus boring, under the necessary condition that they understand that it is a superstimulus and that they appreciate the nuances and non-harmfulness of lesser stimuli.

    As an example a lot of people have experimented with powerful mind altering drugs, without becoming addicted and/or bored with everyday life.

  35. Phantasmagoria says:

    It’s funny. Common decency and just plain old compassion tells me that I should feel sorry for women who decide to make no attempts to get married until they’ve got nothing (or close to nothing) to offer, but I just can’t find it in me to feel bad for them.

    But then again, I also don’t see why everyone should be bought up thinking we’re all equal either, when we’re clearly not and that’s not a bad thing. Oh well though. I guess I should be happy that I’m not going to get married now, so I can wear that title with pride.

  36. lavazza1891 says:

    Now I see that the “married five years later” is as low as 25 % for some years. If a woman has 18 single friends and family members in the same age bracket, she will only attend one “bride side” marriage per year on average.

  37. lavazza1891 says:

    What is the feamle reaction when the bride is more often younger than her when she goes to a wedding?

  38. Opus says:

    Looking at the charts I am most struck by the first blue line showing the number of unmarried late twenty-somethings rising increasingly steeply in 10 years from 35% to approaching 50% . It is coming close, I would guess to some sort of tipping point. One must assume that the effect on the orange and yellow lines, were one to project them into the future, would show sharp rises there too. This must be a Player’s Paradise.

    If women delay marrying until their late thirties or beyond, what is one to suppose of their ability to bond, never mind their propensity to slutdom? As they are unlikely to become better looking or more firm of figure either, men are just not going to be interested, even for pump and dump. Perhaps however they do not want to marry, or feel any over-riding desire to do so, for as we know a woman needs to find herself and pursue her career and consider all the men available (personally) before making her considered choice. With her large salary she can afford to buy men if they won’t come to her, and anyway such men are not in it for themselves – so no unsatisfactory one-sided sexual experiences (only their fee).

    I have never really come across women keen to marry, as they aged, but I have found women outraged that I can ‘take them or leave them’, largely leave them – and fail to treat them as the princesses they obviously are. That is the price one pays for equality.

    @David Collard

    I often get confused by acronyms, – I have no idea what a BFF is – but I can tell you that POF is a dating site called Plenty of Fish, and OKC another dating site is OKCupid (should be OK Stupid) and CL should you see that will be Craig’sList.

  39. Phantasmagoria says:

    Ok Stupid is a pretty apt name for it to be honest. I’ve been sitting here debating whether or not I should remake my account on there but it ultimately feels like a hopeless and pointless exercise. I don’t have the energy to waste on trying to break through the egos of the majority of women on there who think they are a deities gift to men

    But then again, that could be applicable to online dating as a whole, due to the sheer disparity in numbers of men and women.

  40. I know what BFF means. My daughter told me.

    I met my wife at a Catholic singles group.

    As Richard Gordon had one of his characters say, something like, consider all the acceptable girls, then marry the one with the best legs.

    I did once read that Sir Thomas More was offered a choice of two sisters, chaste and virtuous maidens. He checked them out in their bed; their nightdresses having ridden up, he was able to make his choice from a perusal and comparison of their upturned bottoms, since they had turned on their tummies to preserve their modesty.

    Simpler, better times. No need for OKC.

  41. Jim says:

    Need to ask yourself personally how many never married and childless men you personally know. I am one. So are both my cousins. So are 4 guys I grew up with. So are about 10 more that I’ve gotten to know. I’m 40 BTW. Yeah I’m sure taken at face value that it might be perceived as irrelevant, but many of us also happen to be financially secure and could easily afford to provide. Problem is current laws and a culture of women who believe they can steal a man’s life long efforts keeps many away. Never mind that modern American women aren’t worth that risk or even the hassle of putting up with.

    One other thing. One of my friend’s married a native Romanian woman and they just had their first child. He is my age, a world traveler, and never considered marriage to any American woman even though he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Have to wonder why folks. I know the answer because we talked about it. But the thing is, many don’t want to know the truth.

  42. greyghost says:

    I tend to agree with Dalrock and Anonymous reader that the marriage strike is driver by women. a man will always marry a desirable woman. What makes it a strike is that reguardless of the trends and behavior of women they still want to be married or think they can. Just because they make themselves undesirable for marriage and are fully feral in hypergamy knowing women it still doesn’t mean they don’t want a husband. They just don’t want to be wives more. When the slut gets into her 30′s she is gets undesirable period. She is oldr and with bastard kids. And the dirty l;ittle secret thesde stupid ass feminist girl power leaders miss is this. With now 50 percent now of 20 to 30 year old never married and out fucking every body and never marrying why in the hell would a man marry some 35 year old slut baby momma. For guys that hate the dating game half of those sluts simulating purity will just shack up at 22 and live with a guy for about 10 years (hypergamy has to insure she is in a position to take advantage of the hidden millionare bad boy). The laws of misandry are in place, cultural bullshit is in place (susan HUS) to enable the lifestyle and men are not playing. (MGTOW,”peter pans” the players and PUA, and the expat or foreign bride types)
    At any given time women can choose to be pleasant and become wives (not get a husband that is what we have now). But in the effort to freely be bitches legaly and culturally even men on the blue pill can see marriage today for what it is (slow death)

  43. andrewmichaelmedina says:

    “as men get older their SMV increases” <—- This right here is more important than you may realize. It's not uncommon to see an up to 10 year age difference in spouses where the man waited till his 30's to settle down. It's rather common in marriages where the husband is Latino, and some of us do date white girls.

    Men who are career driven in their 20's tend to date 20 year olds in their thirties.

  44. deti says:

    Just a geek question here, Dalrock:

    How were you able to get 2011 US census data when the US census was last taken in 2010?

  45. Dalrock says:

    The Census also does surveys continuously. This data is from the Current Population Survey. From the website:

    Current Population Survey Data on Families and Living Arrangements

    The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The survey has been conducted for more than 50 years. Data about families and living arrangements are collected annually as part of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). For CPS definitions and explanations, or for additional information information about the Current Population Survey, visit the CPS website. Historical Time Series are available in this section.

  46. Rex says:

    I find it difficult to assign meaning to the data presented. It may be true that the phenomena of “more never married women …” exist because men are not wanting to marry, the marriage strike. Yet, at the same time with women dominating college, the workforce, with legal advantages offered women, it is also plausible that women are saying that with the advantages I have now, why do I need a man?

    I can imagine both factors influence the slope of the curve showing an increase in never marrieds.

  47. Dalrock says:

    @TheShortBachelor

    I’m curious how this data compares to men of the same age brakets. Is there a larger percentage of unmarried men in the same age bracket? I personally don’t believe that there’s a marriage strike out there, but I have definitely seen male peers delaying and dating/marrying much younger women. Several of my close friends have begun dating women 5 – 6 years their junior in the last year. Most seem headed towards marriage. Obviously as our SMV rises as we age, we have a much larger pool of available women across lower age brackets. Are our spinster counter parts seeing a decline in the number of available men in their age bracket? To me that would be hard evidence to reinforce the error of their ways.

    I took a crack at this question in one of my very first blog posts here. Since women tend to look up in age for mates and men tend to look down in age, the pool of eligible husbands for women does dry up dramatically as they age. Add to this the problems which come from being last to choose and this can leave them with much worse options than they ever imagined. On top of this, there is also the problem (for the marriage delaying women) that men tend to drop out of the marriage market as they get older. Obviously not all do, but the fact that a percentage of them does amplifies the problem.

    I’ve uploaded the spreadsheet I used to create the charts here. Feel free to download it and roll your own charts.

  48. Tom says:

    The mathematical truth is that we will only know whether the marriage strike is real in a few years.

    For now, we see young women being single, and older women being married, but it doesn’t mean that today’s young women will suddenly get married just because the previous generations did (this is why the “everyone gets married by age X” statistic is so misleading, it really should be worded as “everyone born before year X got married”).

    I’d bet $100, that the marriage strike is very real, but we’ll have to wait a few more years to see..

  49. Tim Roberts says:

    What should make this albeit short trend alarming for marriage delayers is that there is also a dramatic increase of younger never married women making their way through the pipe. Imagine never married women in their thirties as water in a bucket. At the bottom of the bucket there is a hole (marriage), and at the top is a pipe pouring additional unmarried women in each year. The hole in the bottom of the bucket has become constricted, and we know that the flow filling the bucket will be increasing based on the increasing numbers of unmarried women in their late 20s.

    Yep. The older women are getting fat and circling the drain while younger more fertile women are pouring into the bucket.

  50. I discussed this not too long ago but I haven’t backed it up with the stats that Dalrock so adroitly wields:

    http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-will-they-find-husbands/

  51. gdgm+ says:

    Perhaps slightly OT, but the Sunday New York _Times_ today has a story about an older single woman who used up all of her resources and is living on a reduced amount of US Social Security funding: Older, Jobless and Forced Onto Social Security

  52. okrahead says:

    I would be interested to know what effect affirmative action hiring policies have on these marriage rates. Affirmative action is normally associated with race, but in point of fact gender is an affirmative action hiring requirement as well (in other words, womyn are given preference over men in both initial hiring and later promotion). Since womyn can count on affirmative action they see less need for a male provider, while men find themselves less able to BE the provider since they are passed over for employment and promotion. Additionally, womyn who are the bosses of men in the workplace tend to want to be the boss everywhere else as well, which does not do anything to help them in their marriage prospects (I know of very few men who want to get married so their wife can treat them like an employee).

  53. Country Lawyer says:

    Incentives matter. Disincentives matter too. And we have finally reached the point where the economic and social incentives for men to marriage are zero for the majority of men, and the disincentives for getting marriage are still steep. (plus the dawning realization that locking in a woman doesn’t guarantee any sex which was the only real selling point for the betas to get married in the first place)

    Couple this with the two fold problem: The men women find attractive have no reason to marry because they have their choice of women and sex without the hassle of marriage. The over looked beta is starting to figure out that buying the used demo model car at full price isn’t a good deal for him either. The alpha doesn’t need to marry, the beta is starting to get angry about how he’s being treated.

    And your data is counting “never been marrieds.” The notorious womanizer George Clooney falls into the camp of having been married, but will never again.

    Profound shifts in the way people think and look at things occur when a certain threshold is reached. Right now, MRAs and such still appear fringe, but the numbers are growing, you can see it in the comment sections in even main stream articles. The sheep are waking up. Once a certain number gets there, the change is going to be dramatic.

    There’s going to be a significant lag in the data when this happens. Say all the men actually go on a marriage strike from this point for the next twenty years. You won’t see it in the stats for at least 4-5 years, maybe longer because you’re looking at the percentage of never married ever, whether its for life or one month or less.

    What you’ll first see is merely a shift in the numbers, which I think you noticed in your green and blue circled areas. The same percentage of women not married when they are 30 years old will be the same percentage of never married four years later when they are thirty-four.

    I can tell you from personal observation that there is a profound shift occurring on the ground for the gen Ys and to a lesser extent the gen Xers and it isn’t happening with the upper class or the lower class, but the middle class kids and professionals.

    Which is why you’re hearing women complaining about the state of men (their lack of attractiveness over all) and marriage (the inability to get a man to marry) these days. The alphas aren’t bending knee, and the betas are starting to opt out.

    The data over the next four years is going to be significantly more telling.

  54. Suz says:

    I was about to say Tom has a good point, but Country Lawyer beat me to it. Also I’d like to see the stats divided up by socioeconomic status. How many women who can’t support themselves all that comfortably (even with public aid, which may well begin to dry up) are delaying marriage? And how many men who could afford families, are opting out? Wouldn’t that determine if the “strike” is driven by women’s choice, or by men’s choice leaving women SOL?

  55. Bill says:

    When I recently wrote that women were “wasting time” by delaying their search for a good partner past 25, lots of women totally freaked out and went ballistic. I got trolled like I hadn’t been in months. Seems there’s an enormous degree of denial out there. It’s really going to bite a lot of them on the rear in time.

  56. Well, wasting time is one way to put it Bill. But, you know there’s no good reasons to get married in this society. Those rinky dink tax breaks and other little decorations they hang on the marriage tree don’t mean spit. On the other hand, the downside is huge. For men, its a lifetime of paying through the nose for kids you never see and alimony for a wench you wouldn’t p*ss on if she was on fire. That’s just for starters. For women, it’s a business deal. Nothing more. And the kids are bargaining chips. As commercial transactions go, it’s a loser. If it sucks for some of the whores, who cares? I don’t. IMO, many of these ‘manoshpere’ blogs spend entirely too much time discussing the plight of women. Who gives a rat’s ass what they think or how they feel? The point is they have all the power and the issue is how do we get some of that back. Nothing else matters until that happens because nothing will change until that happens.

  57. Badger says:

    Thanks for the kind words, Dalrock.

    As I said in my post (partially inspired by your work), I wager that most men who marry do so in response to the woman’s readiness to it, even if they do want to marry (and many men DO want that lifestyle). It’s a bit like housecleaning – men want clean houses, but usually the woman gets irritated and motivated to clean before the man does. So if women aren’t signaling the desire for marriage, the men don’t become married – and so they become unwitting and passive marriage-strikers.

    As I also said in my post, lots of the value of marriage for a man is frontloaded in his younger years, when the support of a sound relationship can add huge value to his life as he navigates getting established in the world. However, feminists are absolutely paranoid about women supporting men and then getting left by them (even though this is far less common than the walkaway wife scenario), and a combination of this paranoia and projection (“if I live a fabulous single life I’ll be a great candidate to become a wife!”) leads women to be advised to wait it out. Like I said, if a woman is getting off the elevator on the penthouse floor and doesn’t want/can’t provide the childbearing family experience to the man, there’s not a lot of reason for him to upgrade her from a recurring-committed monogamous partnership to a full marriage.

    Finally, I agree that there isn’t a generalized “marriage strike” by men, but if you recall what I said in “Spinster Math,” there doesn’t have to be one. Just 10% of “eligible” men sitting out of marriage in the next ten years or so will DOUBLE the number of unmarried women – and probably triple the number of “involuntary” spinsters, as some of the unmarrieds are gay or not interest in marriage at all.

  58. freebird says:

    SAVE services reports one million false domestic violence allegations in the US every year.
    If she’s really spiteful she accuses of diddling the children.Or martial rape,or date rape. combine that with an economic downturn,and child support,debtors prison,and alimony,and you have some very powerful disincentives.
    The govt wins all around:less payments out of the SS fund,and more payments to the courts and lyers.
    It’s a big business
    killing off families and creating more workers and households.
    Forget all the mating BS,it’s in the courts.

  59. I’m not good at thinking about this kind of thing, but it takes two to marry, and maybe both sexes are less interested and they are responding mutually to the perceived lack of interest. Not so much a marriage strike as a strike combined with a lockout. Are they the right terms?

  60. Freebird is correct. The profit incentive is all on the wrong side. I will add that the courts have legitimized homosexual unions for one reason. Profit for the lawyers. The equal protection mantra is just an excuse. It’s not by accident that the entire homo marriage issue has been pushed in the courts, not the legislatures. Follow the money. I find it somewhat amusing that the LGBT community has, by advocating for marriage ‘rights’, placed itself at the mercy of greedy lawyers and a corrupt legal system when they decide to split up. And it’s no secret that ‘gay’ couples don’t last long. Silly homos, civil marriage means court controlled divorce and that means you say goodbye to your money. Ha Ha.

  61. Badger, my friend you are spinning your wheels in the mud with all that psycho babble nonsense. It boils down to a few very basic and well understood principles. Men are attracted to women because they are beautiful creatures. Women are attracted to pretty men but their primary drive is a strong nesting instinct. Marriage, as an institution, is screwed up for numerous reasons. Freebird summed it up very nicely from the financial side. Of course there are other social reasons too. The equal rights crap and women’s lib movement have been very destructive. But here’s the thing, men gave up their power and the women who now hold power don’t have the first clue what to do with it. When men decide to take back their power, the scales will once again balance. That’s the nickel tour. All this talk about alphas, betas, front loading and whatever else you’ve been obsessed with, is distracting bullshit. Let me give you something better to think about. Why do we allow the state to license marriage? Why does the state claim jurisdiction over the private affairs of a family? Have you ever wondered why no priest or paster will perform a marriage without a state issued permission slip? Whatever B.S. reasons you might think of, they went right out the window when the homos were granted marriage ‘rights’ by the government. Is a broken marriage really appropriate subject matter for the court system? If it is, why don’t the courts use contract law in divorce actions? Now, you are on a more productive path of inquiry.

  62. TFH says:

    In the last two years it has gone up dramatically from 11.8% to 14%.

    Wow, that might indicate that something started to get bubbly at the start of 2010…

    A Misandry Bubble, perhaps….

    ….at this rate, market forces might catch up and correct the distortion/transfer the costs by 2020…

  63. TFH says:

    Dalrock said :

    However, once the bubble burst the psychology reversed, and now sellers are the ones urgent about closing the deal.

    …. sounds like a Misandry Bubble began at the start of 2010!

    *I’m still not convinced what we are seeing is driven primarily by men deliberately avoiding marriage.

    I think the nuance is that men are still willing to marry women under 30 (who themselves are turning men down), but that men are no longer willing buyers of women after 30…

    So men are striking against marriage to women over 30, but not under 30. Makes sense if the goal is to have a couple of children.

    That is how both Dalrock and the MRAs who insist there is a marriage strike, are both right. Neither are wrong; the devil is in the details.

  64. TFH says:

    I will add that if never-married white women are rising steeply, then the condition of never-married black and Hispanic women is even worse..

    This is because the topmost black and Hispanic men often marry white women. Hence until recently, black and Hispanic women were bearing the costs while most white women still could afford to be choosy. But now even white women are finding the supply/demand equation turn on them.

  65. TFH says:

    I am going to say something brutal that needs to be part of the androsphere psyche. Ferdinand Bardamu was usually who I would go to when I wanted to insert a new meme quickly, but now I have to do it without him :

    Fact : Miss Universe/Miss America pageants are usually won by women age 19-23. But the OLDEST. The absolute OLDEST woman ever to win Miss Universe was 26…

    Now, this shows that peak female beauty is really only from 18-25. A 7-year window out of an 80-year lifetime. Extremely short.

    If we extend the range to non-peak beauty, fine, the range is 18-30. After that, it falls. No one, not even a 1 in a billion outlier, was ever a serious contender for Miss Universe at age 28, let alone 32.

    This means that by the time a woman is 28, most of her beauty is gone.

    In the old days, people married at age 20-21. This was partly to ensure virginity, and partly to ensure that the husband got almost all of his wife’s beauty years.

    But marriage when the woman is 28? A man is getting just 20% of the woman’s beauty. Marriage at 32? The man is getting just 5% of the wife’s beauty (and the peak beauty is far, far gone).

    Yet, a man is supposed to commit the majority of his lifetime output? For just 5% of what men 60 years ago got?

    Market forces may take a long time to correct imbalances, but correct them they do.

  66. TFH says:

    Badger,

    As I also said in my post, lots of the value of marriage for a man is frontloaded in his younger years,

    Of course. In the old days, when people married at age 21, the husband got almost all of the woman’s lifetime beauty and fertility (and without the risk of divorce theft, losing his kids, etc.).

    But now, if a man marries a woman who is 32, he only gets 5% of her lifetime beauty. The best years of beauty are long gone, and only the final end is still available. Yet his own risk is so much *more* than in the old days….. she can take his earnings and kids from him unilaterally and without any accountability.

    It is amazing that it is taking this long for market forces to correct this imbalance.

  67. TFH says:

    lavazza,

    What is the feamle reaction when the bride is more often younger than her when she goes to a wedding?

    That is obvious. She sleeps with the PUA-type guys there who specialize in swooping such women.

    See the first 30 minutes of the movie ‘Wedding Crashers’.

  68. This article from 1939 seem appropriate: The Fortunate Spinster.

    The first sentence: “I am almost twenty-nine, which is perilously close to the awful thirty mark.”

    Later on: “Now what do I have that married women do not have? I shall begin with the ridiculous rather than the sublime. First of all, I have a car. Don’t laugh.” Etc, etc…

  69. TFH says:

    I will go so far as to say that when either the blue line (25-29) crosses 50%, OR the red line (30-34) crosses 25%, we will have what is known as a ‘cascading disruption’.

    The government will do more and more to attempt to coerce men to marry, or otherwise provide for women. For example, child support will be tacked onto not just biological fathers, but any man who can be duped into ‘watching the kids’.

    In other words, the avenues to trap men into slavery will expand.

  70. Nas says:

    W. C. Taqiyya ,

    Are you from a Islamic background? You must be because you make far too much sense in your comments. Unfortunately western men would never take back their power because they traded their dicks in for pussies long ago. Never ever underestimate the thristiness of American men; its truly pathetic.

  71. an observer says:

    TFH

    Government already does a lot of work to support women.

    Equal opportunity, afformative action, HR and media jobs, ‘fair’ recruitment processes … all subject to heavy taxation to maintain. That cannot last forever.

    In addition, there is the male-hating education system, heavily-regulated professions, overly long training periods for many non-technical jobs …

    After surviving school and the finding work saga, the average beta men can look forward to marrying an aging harridan who can divorce at a moments notice and take most of the assets.

    Will it take the arrival of the sex bots before the never marrieds become too big to ignore? Perhaps governments will tax technology extortionately, or denounce them as banned imports.

  72. TFH says:

    Government already does a lot of work to support women.

    Of course. I am the one who propagated the info that 70-80% of ALL government spending is a transfer from men to women, and any democracy will unavoidably revert to that state over time…

    I am saying there will be more excessive and brutal action by the government against men.

  73. A woman over 30 is a bad bet for a man. Most men don’t mind that a woman’s beauty and charm decline; what they mind is if they were not around in the woman’s life before they declined. It is exquisitely insulting to a man for a woman to choose to offer herself at 30 to him, having effectively given her best years of femininity to a career and/or other men. As somebody here aptly put it, it is like expecting a man to buy a demo model from a car dealer. Other, even cruder, similes come to mind.

    I married at 30. My wife was 25. I had no interest in 30 year old women at that time.

  74. an observer says:

    “…excessive and brutal …”

    If it becomes that obvious to the mainstream, expect that there will be ways devised to get around the issues. Perhaps stand-in wives for tax purposes, ‘marriages’ of convenience, family trusts, asset splitting, tax shelters, money in childrens names, offshoring of assets …

    Come to think of it, this all sounds much like what we already see. Modern partnerships run more like a business (dissolvable at any time subject to tax advice?!).

    What a way to incentivise partnering up . . .

  75. Höllenhund says:

    @Badger

    “As I also said in my post, lots of the value of marriage for a man is frontloaded in his younger years, when the support of a sound relationship can add huge value to his life as he navigates getting established in the world.”

    I’ll have to respectfully disagree. A sound relationship is more of a hindrance than an advantage for a young man who wants to establish himself, because the latter requires lots of time and focus, it maybe even necessitates moving to another town or country. Getting tied down is merely a recipe for never-ending drudgery. Young fathers are mercilessly exploited by employers because they know a dumb chump with wife and kids can’t afford to quit his job even if it’s practically a pile of shit.

    Moreover, young men aren’t likely to live in sound relationships, female hypergamy being what it is. If marriage ever has any advantages for a man, it’s in his old age when he may have to rely on the support of his children and wife.

  76. Hey, Dalrock. I just ported my site, and didn’t know that I had to manually set up pings before posting. So, ping! http://www.theuniversityofman.com/blog/gimme-that-old-time-girligion.html

  77. Comment_Whatever says:

    I’d say it’s generally possible to get pre-25 men to marry pre-25 women no matter how stupid the arrangement is for him. The girl is to pretty, and he is young and stupid.

    However, getting post-30 men to marry post-30 women is another matter entirely. If they don’t have the status to marry a younger women, things get rather tricky with them marrying at all.

    UNLESS OF COURSE THE WOMAN ACCIDENTALLY DELIBERATELY GETS PREGNANT.

    I suspect the number of OOPS pregnancies is massive. As data suggests:
    1.41% of births to unmarried women…..

    2.Some women have kids, after the first kid “locks in” her husband.

    3.Some men “do the right thing” and marry the “OOPS” pregnancy woman.

    So the number of CONCEPTIONS that occurred out of wedlock or to a woman whose FIRST kid was out of wedlock…. 60 to 70 percent?

    ACCIDENTAL DELIBERATE PREGNANCY IS THE NEW FEMALE MARRIAGE PROPOSAL.

  78. Comment_Whatever says:

    Remember, 41% of all live births are to unmarried women OUTRIGHT.

  79. Pingback: Never marrieds piling up part 2; what should I do? | Dalrock

  80. greyghost says:

    The pregnancy thing is just another work around for women to get the marriage with out obligation to a man. Almost all of this career woman,college education,child support laws, VAWA, laws of misandry in general is to insure women are not ever responsible for anything they do. Even with an accidental pregnancy the man has no say so by law and the meal ticket can be turned in at any time with out consequnce by the mother.

  81. Will says:

    42% of Women in a survey of 6000 UK Women ADMITTED they would LIE about being on the Pill to get pregnant. The true figure is probably higher as this is just the percentage that ADMITTED it.

  82. Country lawyer says:

    “What is the feamle reaction when the bride is more often younger than her when she goes to a wedding?

    That is obvious. She sleeps with the PUA-type guys there who specialize in swooping such women.

    See the first 30 minutes of the movie ‘Wedding Crashers’.”

    Um, no. Maybe there are weddings like this, but I doubt it. Except for the cougars, every unmarried woman is desperate to have a “date” to a wedding. People forget how important that status marker is to show she could get married too.

    Guys show up at a wedding single.

    Women don’t if they can scrounge up a man somewhere.

  83. Windy says:

    “But now, if a man marries a woman who is 32, he only gets 5% of her lifetime beauty. The best years of beauty are long gone, and only the final end is still available.”

    Frankly, the men who string along their girlfriends in fruitless LTRs get all the woman’s youth and beauty. And those are mainly young betas who do that. As well as the men who just sleep around. They get a lot of free sex, without investing or paying. This is just a fact in the West today, be happy.

    Also, you want a young, fresh woman, but you won’t support her. You won’t do your part of the natural bargain – you won’t provide for her, but you will expect that she get that degree and put it to good use, working like a horse and paying half the bills. So in fact you get more than the ancient males did – you get a young fresh sweet thing (or at least you feel you are entitled to one, but you are NOT), who you don’t have to provide for and whose additional income will guarantee you a better living standard. Practically, you are living off of the woman. So what’s in it for the woman? Literally, nothing, besides emotional support (if she’s lucky enough to get it from a guy, although you have to give it too), some romance maybe. But nothing substantial. Unless you love the person, but love happens very rarely.

    Also, a 30+ woman also gets an older guy. Yea, some of the 30+ guys might have accrued some wealth, but most haven’t, most men are average, both in looks, in wealth and in game, and if they have the wealth they won’t share it anyway – even a 30+ guy will NOT be a provider, the woman will have to toil until the rest of her life just like she did in her 20s. So what’s in it for the woman? A 30+ guy is also beginning to age – many are bald by then, most have beer bellies, they have become lazier, pickier, more set in their ways, less sweet/romantic, bad habits have set in, some are beginning to show health problems past 35 (including mental issues, every other guy has a little ailment here and there). Guys older than 37 are in the risk category for fatherhood – their sperm is already aging and the likelihood of miscarriage, autism and schizophrenia will increase with older sperm. That’s a pretty bad deal for the woman. Sorry, but the vast majority of 30+ guys are betas anyway, many of them are aging already. So, yea, agreed – the pickings for a 33+ woman are slim in the marriage market. But the same for the 30+ guys who have waited too long. Most of them will NOT be getting the younger women, since the younger ones are in NO hurry to tie the knot and they have plenty of young men to date. The average age for the American woman to have the first baby is 24-25, for the white women it might be 26 or so – that means that a large part of the 30+ women will ALREADY have a child by somebody else – how’s that for an option. The pickings are slim for both sexes. So let’s just be human and accept people the way they are – everyone ages.

  84. Windy says:

    What happens past 30 for both sexes is that, even though you still have the vague idea of “having to settle down”, you become more indifferent to the opposite sex. Both sexes lose traction that they had in their early 20s that let them fall in love and lose their heads, so they got tied with each other. Past 30, there is no natural pull anymore, or it is much weaker. Also your experience shows that relationships aren’t even all that great. So you become picky / extra hypergamous, etc. But you also lose the physical interest. So what works past 30 is a rational attitude – I have to have kids, family, etc. Sure, there can still be love, but you won’t be fooled anymore. I only got married at 36 because I wanted a baby and wanted some extra help with that. Sure, I love my husband but I definitely felt less enthusiastic about it than I did at 21-30, when I actually wanted marriage and a child, but my then partner refused. Now when I look at the guys past 35 – boring and far from sexy… 95% of them. Sorry. I bet most of the somewhat desirable guys feel the same about me and other chicks (although I’ve had offers from pretty well off 40 somethings, mostly divorcees).

  85. Nas, no I’m not really Islamic. But, I know a thing or three about these issues. However, when the Muslims take over, and it won’t be long now, the feminists will be in for a rude awakening. A little extreme for my tastes but sometimes historical corrections can be brutal. I agree that it seems hopeless. But, we still have to hope, no?

    BTW, for the female ‘sympathizers’ out there. Have any of you recanted all those minority endowed legal entitlements you get by virtue of your gender? Thought so. Now, if you want to be useful, get your cute little fannies out in the street and march to eliminate all those entitlements you do not deserve. Hurry up girls, the Muslims are coming and I’m not gonna try to stop them.

  86. slwerner says:

    Windy – ”most men are average, both in looks, in wealth and in game, and if they have the wealth they won’t share it anyway – even a 30+ guy will NOT be a provider, the woman will have to toil until the rest of her life just like she did in her 20s.”

    Sorry to have to point this out to you, but…by definition, most women are also “average” in both looks and wealth. And, one thing is certain – women might expect a man to be willing ot share HIS wealth with her, but a typical women will be much less likely to be willing to share HER wealth with a man (marriages with lesser-employed or stay-at-home dads not only fail at a much higher rate, but also fail rather quickly because women are much more likely to resent be the one who has to provide).

    And yes, most women will now have to “toil” the rest of their lives…just like most men. Welcome to the club, Princess. Oh, and be sure to thank Feminism for that slice of unpleasant reality.

    But, the fact you seem not to comprehend is that “wealth” is somewhat of a relative term. A man in his 30’s making $50k/yr is likely to be much more satisfied than his female peer of the same age and earnings. There’s long been the snarkiness about ‘men, boys, and the price of their toys”, but it does seem that women are the more frivolous spenders, with single women having higher levels of credit indebtedness.

    The drive for (many, most(?)) young men to marry is for access to frequent sex, and for (biological) children. (Leaving aside that modern Marriage 2.0 guarantees neither), once a man gets older his desire for both begin to wane.

    Recent surveys demonstrate that it is women who are generally less happy than are men, and, although there isn’t demographic break-out of the data to show it, this would include the increasing numbers of never-married and currently unmarried of both genders. If men’s happiness (collectively) is not negatively impacted by the growing numbers of single older men, but women certainly does seem to be, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that (older) men are better adjusted to being single than are women.

    So, try to spin it as a matter of older men (30’s is older?) not being worthwhile to women; but, it would seem that it’s still women who are least happy being single as they get beyond 30.

  87. TFH says:

    There’s long been the snarkiness about ‘men, boys, and the price of their toys”,

    Almost everything that women say about men is projection.

    “Won’t commit”? Projection – it is women who have a problem with commitment, and even worse, demand money from the person they are abandoning (men never do that, nor can they).

    “Men are less evolved”? Projection. If we took people from 10,000 BC and compared them to people today, the men would be very different (the modern ones being more evolved), while the women would be mostly the same. This is become the Y-chromosome is faster evolving.

    “Men cheat”? Projection – women cheat more than men. What is even worse, most women want to be able to get away with cuckolding a man.

    “Men don’t share”? Projection. Women believe that what HE earns is hers, and what she earns is hers, without sharing with him. Even feminists admit this.

  88. Höllenhund says:

    The ‘natural bargain’ doesn’t exist anymore, Windy, largely because women want it to be that way. You know, empowerment, economic independence and all that. Suck it up.

  89. slwerner says:

    TFH – ”Almost everything that women say about men is projection.”

    What I find humorous is that after posting her spin about men bringing nothing to the (relationship) table, in her next post she provides a nice back-handed refutation to her own contentions by admitting that she, herself, only married so as to gain provision form a man:

    ”I only got married at 36 because I wanted a baby and wanted some extra help with that.”

    She tries to back-peddle a bit by claiming to “love” him, but I think we can all see that her “love” for him is dubious, at best. just by reading what she’s written about her relationship with him.

    Sure seems to me that he brought a whole lot more to their relationship than she did.

  90. Suz says:

    Ah, but for Windy, human history began circa 1970.

  91. Dalrock says:

    Windy is the classic case of a woman whose life is a manosphere cliché yet comes here to teach the ignorant how the world works. She also makes me think (just for a minute) that we should take up a collection to sponsor more men like Marcos.

    I only got married at 36 because I wanted a baby and wanted some extra help with that. Sure, I love my husband but I definitely felt less enthusiastic about it than I did at 21-30, when I actually wanted marriage and a child, but my then partner refused.

  92. slwerner says:

    Oops!

    I misspoke (on top of making a typo):

    Where I typed:
    married so as to gain provision form a man

    I should have instead typed settled for a beta so as to gain provision from some man

    Sorry about my error.

    And, you have to feel bad for the poor chump she tricked into marrying her. She want a kid, and a man’s money. I wonder if the kids is even her husbands? She kinda comes off as the type who’d gladly cuckold the sort of beta she’d have to settle for.

  93. O-Tony says:

    Wendy, you have wrong assumptions. See, with the “Red Pill” that is now out (more mainstream), you are now finally seeing a group of men actually “wise up” to the game.
    You assume that a man wont give support? For the betas, the assumption was to support her all along. In your head, and your anecdotal life experiences, you found out that “men wont give their support”.
    Think of it this way, there was a post in the MRA about how a guy turns out to be “misogynist”. The gist of what is said, (paraphrasing) I was not a misogynist, I started off thinking women were what they say, their behavior and poor treatment towards me, repeatedly in the course of time, made me into a “misogynist” (misogynist is in quotes for a reason).
    Now that betas are waking up, they find out that their unquestioned willingness to give support (which without really thinking why, it was just so, meaning, IT was there all along, at least in the beginning, and unquestioned at that.) was based off the assumption that women are what they say they are and it turns out that its not. They feel and KNOW they are being taken advantage of, now consciously make a choice not to support/provide but instead to game the system, just like the girls they were chasing after were doing all along. Why blame him for playing by the same rules that she plays? (the assumption being that when the game was played, the beta was fooled into thinking he was playing by a certain set of “rules” that are binding to both parties)
    Then you go “AHA, see, they were never willing to support”.
    All in all, I say this to say, its your fault (women are the cause, don’t shift the blame to men, they do have some “blame”, but the scales of blame are heavier on the women’s side.DON’T MOVE THE FULCRUM CLOSER TO WOMEN SO TO TRY TO BALANCE THE SCALES) The last part in CAPS is what I think you are doing.

  94. The Antigrrrl says:

    @Windy

    Last science I heard was that women peak sexually in their 30′s so where are you getting the “lose interest physically” part unless you are saying that women on the carousel are all f’d out by their 30′s? That I could believe.

  95. deti says:

    Notice in Windy’s screeds more confirmation and evidence of manosphere theories:

    1. Apex fallacy clouds most women’s thinking about relationships. Most women think that most men are making out like bandits sexually. (“the men who string along their girlfriends in fruitless LTRs get all the woman’s youth and beauty. And those are mainly young betas who do that. As well as the men who just sleep around. They get a lot of free sex, without investing or paying.”)

    Windy, your assertion that young betas are getting free sex and getting to sleep around is nothing short of absurd. Astonishingly ignorant. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

    2. Women resent egalitarianism in relationships. Note the resentment and anger bubbling underneath the writing — feminism says men and women are equal; women now have to work to help make ends meet, and women HATE IT: (“you want a young, fresh woman, but you won’t support her. You won’t do your part of the natural bargain – you won’t provide for her, but you will expect that she get that degree and put it to good use, working like a horse and paying half the bills.”)

    Windy, the SMP looks like this because you and the sisterhood wanted it this way. Suck it up and deal with it.

    3. Women’s reluctance to make hard choices, because to women, any choice short of a hot, alpha dominant man is a bad choice: (“Also, a 30+ woman also gets an older guy. Yea, some of the 30+ guys might have accrued some wealth, but most haven’t, most men are average, both in looks, in wealth and in game, and if they have the wealth they won’t share it anyway – even a 30+ guy will NOT be a provider, the woman will have to toil until the rest of her life just like she did in her 20s. So what’s in it for the woman?”)

    4. Women’s extreme rationalization of their errors in judgment and their failures: her second comment beginning with (“What happens past 30 for both sexes is that, even though you still have the vague idea of “having to settle down”, you become more indifferent to the opposite sex.”)

    No, Cupcake. It’s not that you’re indifferent. Women care very much about getting married to a suitable partner. It’s just that at 30+ the task becomes much, much more difficult — a fact that feminism conveniently left out of the prospectus. It’s not indifference, it’s that you were forced into making hard choices you never thought you would have to make. It’s not indifference, it’s that each passing year makes it that much more difficult to marry and reproduce — something the sisterhood also failed to mention.

    I would also bet that you got married at 36 to have a baby, and not because you wanted a husband’s help with it. You got married because you were foaming at the mouth with baby rabies but were sane enough to know that having a bastard child would lower your status and ruin any chance you had at marriage. You had to make a hard choice, you made it, and you’re making the best of it. So let’s call it what it is, instead of gussying it up with rationalizations and explanations.

    Finally, I bet your husband is glad to know you love him, though you’ve admitted here on this forum you were — and are — using him for his help and his money. You’re using him as a wage slave and a beast of burden. You wanted a child, and you wanted help with that. You’re using him, plain and simple, and there’s no way around that conclusion.

  96. Windy says:

    „ by definition, most women are also “average” in both looks and wealth.”

    Right, except that women naturally don’t „have to” have wealth. Yes, most women are also average, except for the little diference that women have ova and are able to birth children, yes, even at ages 30-40. In the old days women used to birth well into their 40s, nowadays they no longer do it because of the inconvenience – there are contraceptives (most abortions today are for women past 40 and teenagers). So even if a woman is aging and physically not as appealing to the man as a 21 year old, she still has the eggs. The man doesn’t. A 30-35 year old woman is still in an ok position to become a mother. But you are derailed because you are so focussed on the looks and your own physical pleasure, that you fail to notice this simple truth and the natural advantage of the woman. So let’s take two persons – a 30 yo average man, and a 30 yo average woman – from the evolutonary perspective, who is more valuable? The woman, ofc. Especially, if she has her own financial resources. She can still pull off being a mother, the man can’t become a father without the woman.
    About lesser employed men – sure, the women will resent them because frankly the woman is cheated in that kind of a relationship. She brings to the table her youth and sex while the man does not provide. The opposite is simply unnatural. Yet men today want to live in this unnatural setting. They want a wife who is two years or even more younger, definitely below 35, they want the wife to work AND birth and raise a child. So technically, the whole Western civilization at the moment is living off the women. That’s why there are so few kids.
    It MAY work if both parties are highly rational (preferably educated), but there has to be a trade off. The husband can stay at home with the baby, let’s say, for a year, but then he has to do everything – be emotionally supportive, take care of the baby and the house. That’s not an unfair deal, but can only last for a year or two.
    The problem in the West now is that because people want to have such a high living standard and they want to have so much comfort and wealth, it is inevitable that most women will have to work outside of home. The corporations encourage that. And when a woman has financial independence – she has a much higher bargaining power.
    As to the happiness surveys – I see no point in discussing that as happiness is a highly subjective matter. I will not participate in this gender war (which includes pathologic hatred against the opposite sex). I wasn’t happier in my 20s than I am now, that’s for sure, as I was much more insecure. Sometimes being in a relationship can also cause a lot of pain and discomfort. Being single can be great. In today’s complex society, there are reasons for both sexes to be both happy and unhappy being single. One thing that is noticable though is that older single men tend to let themselves go – they care less about their looks and health.
    I don’t think women are that unhappy, but given how American society is today, it’s not surprising that many of them are. There are unnatural scizophrenic demands on a Western woman – you have to be like a man, yet when you ARE like a man, you’re being loathed. You do the right thing, yet you are still punished. It is a truly sick society in some ways. Also, there is a big focus on women in the media – so many articles about single women. Women are being pestered continuously. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    „30s is older? „
    Yes, the 30s IS older. Of course, it does matter what point in the 30s. Below 33 is still relatively young, but 35+ is already middle aged. Professional athletes end their careers at 35. So even for the male it is a serious age. Sperm banks do not accept sperm from men over 37. Both men and women should be done with child bearing / rearing by the time they’re 35-40 (preferably even earlier). That’s just natural and how it was designed to be. As it seems, MOST American women are DONE with child bearing by the time they’re 30.

    As to my love for my husband (who does not make much money and is in debt but has other great qualities), it is very real, I wouldn’t stand to be around a man everyday under the same roof whom I don’t love, much less share the bed with him. And I’m not gaining provision from him (even though I deserve to from the natural standpoint). I could’ve married more affluent men, they courted me, it’s just that I felt nothing for them, didn’t even want to kiss them or have anything romantic. So it is.. you have to settle for some things – you will never have a hunky, rich, emotionally supportive, faithful man who will help around the house, not even when you’re in your early 20s is it possible to get that. You always settle, more or less. Plus, you don’t really choose who you fall in love with. Frankly, I couldn’t marry without love (even if it might have been a “better deal”). Ofc, having children on your own is very difficult, but is the little amount of help you do get in the first years really worth being in a loveless marriage for years? It’s not. Not even for the sake of the child having a dad because it’s better to show the child a loving marriage as a role model and the child can have his daddy even if the couple divorces.

  97. deti says:

    5. For women, it’s all about what she wants and needs. His wants and needs are secondary. Notice Windy’s statements that she wanted a baby and marriage when she was 21-30. She wanted a baby at 36. She simply selected an adequate man to cast in the role of husband and father, for HER benefit. She throws in “sure I love him” but qualifies it with how she is “less enthusiastic” about marriage and family than when she was younger. Makes me wonder if Mr. Windy knows how his wife really feels about him? That she’s less enthusiastic about him but tosses in “sure, I love him”.

    So, men: After reading how Windy feels about her marriage, how do you feel about wifing up the 30 year old with the double digit partner count who’s pressing you for the ring and the date? Does it make you feel secure about your investment? Does it make you feel good about your chances of avoiding the divorce meat grinder? How confident are you that a Windy clone won’t say to you, 4 or 5 years in, “I’m not haaaaappy!” How do you feel you measure up (heh) to the man (men) she wanted to marry before she met you? Does a wife saying about you “sure, I love you” sound like she’s head over heels for you? Do you think she’ll eagerly sex you up like you want?

    So, men: does a girl like Windy sound like a good deal to you?

  98. Pingback: Next Phase of the Hypergamous Arms Race: Revenge of the Nerds? | Dalrock

  99. O-Tony says:

    So, men: does a girl like Windy sound like a good deal to you?

    NO! (notice the “!”)

  100. Opus says:

    I was puzzled by TFHs suggestion that by the age of 32 a woman had only 5% of her beauty left. I think what he meant was beauty not in terms of attractiveness at 32, but time before beauty faded. I don’t think that it is quite that bad either way, however, whichever way, it seems to have irked Windy.

    It is frequently interesting to probe beneath the surface of those females like Windy who are less than charitable about us men (as a result of TFHs view) and paint a very depressing view of men and life for the over thirties – not one I really recognise it must be said. In her first comment she refers to men in their twenties who string women along in LTRs and fail to commit (hey it’s free world and ‘you don’t own me’ as so many women are keen to point out to guys keen to advance a relationship). She also tells us that these men sleep around and get a lot of free sex without paying for the same (is she implying women are just prostitutes?) in fruitless LTRs. These men will not provide for the women and the women are expected to provide for the men, she says. Clearly an old fashioned gal.

    By the second message however we discover what this is really all about: Windy herself was strung along in her twenties but her ‘partner refused’. Always difficult to know what that term ‘partner’ means but seems like she was pressuring him without success. Better that way than married to someone who does not want you, I’d say?

    Is this not a case where old-fashioned courtship (now derided by sex-positive Feminists as oppression) might have produced a better result for Windy then in her twenties rather than the quasi but non committal marriage she seems to have enbarked on. I suggest Windy’s anger might be better addressed to her sisters. Perhaps we will learn more in a future message. I am not unsympathetic, though Windy seems to have borne out almost everything TFH was saying about limited windows of opportunity. As usual well done TFH!

  101. TFH says:

    Why are people debating Windy? Has she lasted 72 hours?

    None of these femtrolls ever last 72 hours…

  102. Windy says:

    Hahaha, I didn’t trick him! He asked me to marry him. You guys are weird, why do you sound so agitated? He’s very happy to have me (tells me he’s lucky). And no, there is no „provision” – he makes way less than 50K, way less. I will always have to work, just like I have since a young age. And it’s fine, I like having money and being able to afford nice things.
    As to the natural bargain.. I don’t intend to „teach” anything to anybody here. I just invite you to be realistic and look honestly at what kind of a society you have created for yourselves. You want to live in an ultra modern, highly competitive society with a very high material living standard. You even need imigrant labor, not just the women’s labor. You want the woman to pay half of the bills. AND on top of that you want her to birth, nurse and raise your children. That is a LOT to ask. Sure, in some ways financial independence benefits the woman, but having a mass of working women benefits your average male even more. Just be realistic, I’m not saying it’s good or bad, it’s just unnatural. Sure, it can work if people are rational about it and are fair, but then don’t be surprised that women become unfeminine.

  103. TFH says:

    Opus…

    Let’s say that age 18-25 is peak beauty, of 10 points/year for 7 years = 70 points.
    26-30 is secondary-beauty, of 7 points/year for 5 years = 35 points.
    31-34 is tertiary beauty, of 5 points/year for 4 years = 20 points.

    Total : 70 + 35 + 20 = 125 points.

    So if a woman is 32, she has just 10-15 out of her 125 lifetime points remaining….

    Thus, a man is getting just 5% of her lifetime beauty points.

    Again, remember that the OLDEST woman ever to win Miss Universe was 26. Almost never does anyone over 24 even finish in the final round…

  104. TFH says:

    Opus, again, thanks for your praise.

  105. TFH says:

    Opus,

    I think what he meant was beauty not in terms of attractiveness at 32, but time before beauty faded.

    Yes, time remaining.

    At 32, she might still get 50% of the male attention she gets at 24, but the time is running out, and her ‘points’ are greatly depleted….. only 5% of her ‘points’ are remaining unless she is an atypical celeb like Halle Berry or Salma Hayek, who can extend their beauty out a further 6-10 years relative to most other women…

    A very similar point is that about 88% of a woman’s eggs are gone by 30. Now, if she has kids quickly at 31 and 32, no harm done. But still…..the charts in the main article show a major squeeze is imminent…

  106. Dalrock says:

    @Deti (emphasis mine)

    I would also bet that you got married at 36 to have a baby, and not because you wanted a husband’s help with it. You got married because you were foaming at the mouth with baby rabies but were sane enough to know that having a bastard child would lower your status and ruin any chance you had at marriage. You had to make a hard choice, you made it, and you’re making the best of it. So let’s call it what it is, instead of gussying it up with rationalizations and explanations.

    This is why the stats above are going to be such a rude awakening to the women riding the carousel. They have Windy’s attitude regarding men, and plan on hailing a sucker beta provider to provide them with their missing status and child. This worked spectacularly well for women up to those who are now Windy’s age, but it seems extremely unlikely for large numbers of women just a few years younger. “Having your fun” without marrying afterword starts to look uncomfortably like a slut who couldn’t keep a man. They need to have the happy ending of the story, even if they “discover” that they don’t love their husband (whom they never really loved) anymore and divorce him a few years after she gets her children.

  107. Windy says:

    Antigirrl, I didn’t really mean the sex drive, as it is still pretty high even in one’s 30s (my husband and I are both in our 30s and have a great sex life, partly though because we are physically compatible). What I meant about physical attraction is just that the passion for having a guy in your life is not as ardent as in your 20s. You are more experience and you know what a relationship entails – it’s not a walk in the park, it will mean work and compromise. Also, at least me, I saw men for what they are – I took the red pill, I saw how much more they’re into the physical, as opposed to loving the person. In your 30s you really shouldn’t be running around like in your 20s, interacting with the opposite sex, you should be settling down. You go out less. You need more motivation just to go on a date. You pick out faults in the other party, which you might have overlooked in your 20s. That kinda stuff. The standards and expectations have risen, but the options have narrowed (for both).
    Deti, I’m sorry, who are these men in these long fruitless LTRs? Are they some kind of sex gods? Uber successful dudes? They’re not. They’re your regular beta or upper beta 20-30 guys who simply want to have a girlfriend but do not wish to take the next step, to propose and have a kid. Or simply just have a kid. Remember, that alphas are very very few. Most guys are betas and there are tons of guys in LTRs or serial dating. Many, many betas or at least somewhat attractive guys are getting sex. Many young girls have boyfriends – you think they don’t have sex with them? The boyfriends are just regular boys / men who are not much better than those girls. Actually, from the evolutionary perspective they’re lower in value, yet they still get to have sex with them. I don’t blame anybody, that’s just how it is, because we no longer live in a traditionalist society. Just like Dalrock wrote, these dudes don’t have to just sit by a burning candle with the young woman and chat under the father’s supervision. They get full access without any investment. Well, maybe some tiny emotional investment. It’s cheating.
    Deti, I’m not denying that after 30 it is more difficult to get a quality marriage, in fact, that’s exactly what I said. What I also said is that a beta doesn’t become more desirable or lovable at age 35. I didn’t want that guy at 25, and I don’t want him now either. I never said the dating market was great, as most men are average and add to that the broken natural bargain agreement and you have very little in it for the girl like me. There is nothing wrong with those men, as they are human too, I treat them kindly and with polite indifference. I already said it’s better to have the babies before 30 (which most women do!!), and yes it will be easier to get better quality when young, but it’s not like we’ll all be getting hunky alphas even at that age. You might get someone of higher quality but it doesn’t mean you won’t have to be the breadwinner / mother / nurturer all at the same time.
    Please, understand – we are starting to have a situation where there’s going to be way more eternal singles than ever, and one of the reasons is because we CARE less about each other past a certain age, it’s only natural. Neither sex wants to do all the work for the average, aging counterpart. I don’t know about other 30 something women, but I woudn’t bust my ass for an average 35 year old beta. I can be in a mutually beneficial loving relationship with someone who DOES real things for the relationship / family, and that is only when you’re lucky enough to find that one 30+ beta who you happen to fall in love with. Which will become increasingly rare. Although I hope older people find love too, which is what I’d wish to 40 – 50 year olds as well.
    Btw, deti, I was seriously considering becoming a single mother. It is not undoable (I’m not poor). Actually, now that I look back at it, I should’ve had the baby when I was about 32 – at that moment I had a really good salary and had saved enough to easily live on my own for 2 years. I have a really hard working mother who could’ve helped me out. Trust me, at that point, I already didn’t care about being someone single on the dating market with some baggage, as many of my girlfriends had already had kids years ago, had been married, divorced, remarried with all their baggage, etc. At that point I didn’t care about men as much anymore – a child is always more important than a relationship as so many relationships are so fleeting these days, men come and go, but a child stays! What is more important, do you think, at that point? Having some guy who you don’t even know if he’s gonna stick around, or having a baby? Baby is way more serious and lifechanging, than some relationship, some guy who can come and go, and cheat, or whatever.
    My husband gains from having me, btw. Deti, once again – I never said I get money from my husband, I DO NOT and I will not. What I did want was somebody who could help with the baby which he is capable off. Yea, it is like a free male nanny who I also have sex with. Ofc, we have so much more, but you are looking at the most rudimentary levels of partnerships and don’t seem to be taking love into account. WE HAVE LOVE!!! As I said I could’ve picked someone else, who had more money (and was even younger) and life would’ve been easier, but I was NOT in love with that person, nor did I have as much in common with them as with my husband, even though that other person was quite sweet.
    Why do you insist that I’m using my husband? Has it not occured to you that he might also be using me? He loves having sex with me, I am pretty. I do NOT live off of him.
    You think a man who gets emotional support, female companionship, his own genetic offspring, help around the house, support with staying healthy, validation for having a pretty woman in his life, – you think this man is not gaining anything? If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t stick around, duh. He is ALWAYS free to go, yet he does not!

  108. TFH says:

    Deti’s ruthless Gatling Gun that shoots hundreds of red pills a minute, is a pleasure to read….

  109. deti says:

    TFH: I translate comments like Windy’s because I think a lot of newbies in the androsphere or manosphere need to know what women like Windy are really saying. There’s a lot of mumbo jumbo and it takes some time, experience and expertise to cut through it.

    As you know, women like Windy are so hamsterrified, even she can’t see what she’s done or figure out what she is saying. This is why you correctly point out that many here understand women better than they understand themselves.

  110. TFH says:

    I translate comments like Windy’s because I think a lot of newbies in the androsphere or manosphere need to know what women like Windy are really saying. There’s a lot of mumbo jumbo and it takes some time, experience and expertise to cut through it.

    Yes. And a superb job you do of it too.

    These should be full blog articles rather than mere comments that are hard to find in the archives…

  111. Opus says:

    Well the hamster is truly spinning now.

    So, I was wondering about Windy’s fair dismissal of men over thirty: So what does Hollywood think? I’ve just been watching a couple of films – and this entirely at random. The Secret Partner from 1961 with Stewart Granger aged 48 opposite Haya Harrareet aged 30, and The Fountainhead, with Gary Cooper also aged 48 opposite Patricia Neal aged 23. You may say they are old films and things are different now but I believe even Brad Pitt is now also 48 and Johnny Depp about 45 and even my friends 14 year old daughter (the brat) has I noticed pictures of those two on her fb along with Di Caprio who must also be 40 plus. Can the cinema and 14 year old females be so entirely wrong? Perhaps the Hamster can explain?

  112. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    “They need to have the happy ending of the story, even if they “discover” that they don’t love their husband ***”

    Windy’s post supports this. Now I am not saying Windy does not love her husband, or that she’s planning to divorce him. But note what she says:

    As to my love for my husband (who does not make much money and is in debt but has other great qualities), it is very real, I wouldn’t stand to be around a man everyday under the same roof whom I don’t love, much less share the bed with him. And I’m not gaining provision from him (even though I deserve to from the natural standpoint).
    ***
    Ofc, having children on your own is very difficult, but is the little amount of help you do get in the first years really worth being in a loveless marriage for years? It’s not.”

    Windy is making a tacit admission here that she used, and is using, her husband. She is using him for status. She doesn’t get financial support from him, and apparently she supports him. (Make no mistake about it, Windy resents very much the fact that her husband is not a provider, as she points this out a few times.) She doesn’t get a lot of help from him either (note the second excerpted paragraph).

    But she gets the few things he can give her: legitimacy, status, a veneer of respectability. She’s a wife. She got a husband. She persuaded a man to court, date and propose marriage to her. So she got what she wanted.

    And then if it doesn’t work out or she’s not haaaappy or she gets a better offer or just doesn’t want to be married anymore, she can always get divorced. She had her kid(s) while married to their father. There’s no shame in divorce. At least she isn’t a mother of a bastard, and her child isn’t a bastard.

  113. Mark says:

    I thought this to be very appropriate.

  114. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    “This is why the stats above are going to be such a rude awakening to the women riding the carousel. They have Windy’s attitude regarding men, and plan on hailing a sucker beta provider to provide them with their missing status and child. This worked spectacularly well for women up to those who are now Windy’s age, but it seems extremely unlikely for large numbers of women just a few years younger.”

    Well, I think the statistics you set out above show that it will be much harder for carousel riders to step off the carousel into the loving arms of a beta willing to wife them up. Note the steadily rising percentage of women 25-29 never married. It’s now almost 47%. Among women 30-34 the percentage of never marrieds rose 5.6 points just in the last 4 years. Consider that each percentage point is perhaps anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 women, or maybe more.

    I don’t think women are driving all of this. I suspect there are a lot of men, betas included, who are wising up to women’s strategy of “have fun to age 30 then settle for a beta provider”. This is something Roissy had been shouting from the rooftops since 2008. Looks like he’s getting through.

  115. TFH says:

    Make no mistake about it, Windy resents very much the fact that her husband is not a provider, as she points this out a few times.)

    Agreed. The resentment is seething.

    What Windy does not take into account is that her earnings have been heavily propped up by Affirmative Action, while her poor husband has to compete against the disadvantage of being male.

    In a free market meritocracy, he would earn a lot more than her.

  116. Windy says:

    Dalrock, it would only be fair if you let my posts through. Censoring is a sign of weakness.

  117. deti: You said, “This is why you correctly point out that many here understand women better than they understand themselves.” This statement is unfortunate. You see, being able to understand yourself is a prerequisite to understanding others. It is not possible to understand others first. For some ‘modern’ perspective on an old truth, it is the reason psychologists get themselves analyzed by an experienced colleague before setting up shop for themselves. Look it up.

    So, your boastful pride in translating -for- newbie skills, is badly misplaced. You, my friend, are a newbie in basic life skills with an over-inflated sense of self. Not to worry, you can grow up, if you try. Just start with the basics before jumping into the deep water, if you please. Since the issues related to the restoration of men’s rights are rather basic, it should not be too troublesome. Then, instead of trying to translate what others have written, you can write something that makes sense, all by yourself. Sorry to be blunt, but I see a lot of blathering on these blogs and it’s counterproductive. Stick with facts, practice thinking in a straight line, avoid side issues that don’t matter. And guys, whether girls lose 90% or 10% of their beauty by age 30 is not even a side issue, it’s just a stupid, meaningless detail.

  118. Windy says:

    Opus, yea, Brad Pitt is old now, he looks good for his age, but yea, he has visibly aged. Why would you want to compare superstar actors with regular guys? Sorry, I have no place for a guy past 40 in my life. That’s just me, my subjective preference, it doesn’t mean that another woman wouldn’t be happy with an older guy. I just don’t happen to be attracted to old guys. You can’t get away from the fact that most old people, including men, aren’t that physically attractive. Yea, the men can play longer, but only SOME men. Very few.

  119. Windy says:

    And, Opus, you really are shooting off mark here. :) Most teenage and younger girls (and even older women) these days adore Tyler Lautner (now 20, but was 16 when he became a heart throb), Jake Gyllenhaal (now 31 but was in his early 20s when rose to stardom), Channing Tatum, another relatively young dude, Chris Hemsworth – a young stud, in his late 20s, all those actors from Twilight – all below 30. You really haven’t paid much attention to today’s Hollywood (well, I don’t blame you for that one).

  120. Will says:

    That 7.6% rise in 25-29 never married in the last 4 years is an enourmous increase proportionally in such a short period.

  121. Windy says:

    deti, I’m sorry, but a “married” status means very little these days, I’m sorry you must’ve missed that. In an age, when gays are getting “married”, where 40% of kids are born in unregistered partnerships, where people divorce left and right, where there’s so many singles of both sexes – being married or not is not so significant. Yea, it’s a bit of a relief that one doesn’t have to look anymore, but status? What status? I already have status with what I do and who I am.
    And no – at this point I have taken the red pill and I would NEVER support a guy, much less someone who is above 30. I wouldn’t even support a guy if he was 10 years younger and hot. If the guy is not a provider, at least he can help with his work.

  122. Windy says:

    TFH – I am not American, and I have never benefited from AA.

  123. deti says:

    WC:

    It’s unfortunate that you don’t find my comments entertaining or useful. You seem to be in a minority around here.

    It’s pretty important for men to figure out what women are really saying. That way they don’t get snookered or hoodwinked. Betas tend to think that they need to lock down the woman now, so they will get a lifetime’s supply of good sex. Marriage to an ex-carousel rider is a bad deal, and they need to know it.

    They also need to know the hidden agenda women have at 21, at 25, at 30, at 35. Because there’s what women say, and then there’s what they mean.

    At 21, it’s “I just want to have fun and party.

    At 25 it’s “I’m still having fun, not really wanting a relationship right now (unless he’s Mr. Big).

    At 28 it’s “OK, this sex and STR and pump and dump isn’t so much fun anymore. Time to look for a husband.”

    At 30 or 31 it’s “OK, a couple more pump & dumps didn’t work out. Where are all the good men? Seriously, I need to get married and start having babies now. I’m not kidding around.”

    At 35 it’s “WTF??!! omigod omigod omigod I need a man need a baby need a man need a baby now now now now NOW NOW!!!”

    The fact that you don’t like me, or don’t like my message, or don’t like the way I present the message, doesn’t change the basic truths. Many men aren’t being taught this.

    And BTW, the rate at which a woman’s looks declines and how much is left at 30 is pretty important, considering how this SMP looks right now.

  124. Suz says:

    deti,
    I admire your dignity and restraint.

    WC,
    Having read a few of your more cryptic comments, scratching my head and thinking, “Huh?” it did occur to me that you might have some valid points, but perhaps I’m just not bright enough to understand what you were saying.

    Thanks for clearing up that little issue for me.

  125. Opus says:

    When ever I see someone write ‘Look it up’ or ‘Read this’ or similar, (the appeal to authority) I always suspect that someone of going for the put-down. It is the equivalent of the bully in the play-ground reminding his victim that he has larger bigger mates to help him make his point.

  126. slwerner says:

    W. C. Taqiyya – ”Since the issues related to the restoration of men’s rights are rather basic”

    Strictly speaking, I’ve never gotten the impression that Dalrock has ever intended this blog to be a Men’s Rights site. That part about ” Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.” might be a good indication that his aim isn’t just Men’s Rights – at least not in the more direct ways you seem to be alluding to.

    Still, the is significant overlap between what are men’s interest/issues and what are elements of men’s (legal) rights that it may seem like this was intended as a Men’s Rights site (that, to you, has gotten off-track by delving too far into various aspects of male-female relationship issues.

    And, I do think that your criticism of Deti is off-base in that regard. It’s even off-base when dealing just with what would better fall under the men’s rights agenda.

    So much of restoring the place of men cannot be easily accomplished vi legal means. Thus, I believe that it is vitally important to educate (young) men as to the dangers they face in this post-feminist reality. And, to that end, educating them about relationships – especially about how women actually ARE, as opposed to what young men have been taught about them and their forthrightness (or, more accurately, their lack thereof) – is no small part of teaching them how to protect themselves.

    Sorry if you disagree, but the reason why so much of what Deti posts garners so much favorable attention id that he DOES get the reader to take a different perspective of those things that woman are saying. I’d have to imagine that he is far more likely to be effective in reaching and teaching confused and deluded young men than is someone who sick sot a strict nuts-n-bolts of men rights message.

    Sure, he employees a good bit of supposition, and in any instance, may be entirely wrong a bout a given women. But, collective experience (as sheared on forums such as this), informs that more-often-than not, he’s going to be correct. And, yes, a woman who makes assertions about herself, her relationships, and the importance/relevance of her cherry-picked anecdotes that run consistently against the observable empirical evidence, does seem not to fully understand herself; at least not as well as others who can make educated and informed assessments of what she probably really means, but can’t bring herself to face-up to.

    I, for one, certainly welcome Deti’s insights, as I do believe that they capture the essence of reality, even if they may not be an accurate reflection of certain individuals.

  127. slwerner says:

    From Islam Watch:
    The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies.

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that W. C. Taqiyya is, in fact, the Muslim woman who has periodically tried to disrupt Manosphere sites under multiple pseudonyms (one time Spearhead pain-in-the-ass named null, but has used other names elsewhere – Tokyorose, or something like that on Roissy’s site for some time, as I understand.)

    Just my guess, but I though I’d put it out there.

  128. deti says:

    These passages yet again illustrate the woman’s directives.

    “I was seriously considering becoming a single mother. It is not undoable (I’m not poor). Actually, now that I look back at it, I should’ve had the baby when I was about 32 – at that moment I had a really good salary and had saved enough to easily live on my own for 2 years. *** At that point I didn’t care about men as much anymore – a child is always more important than a relationship as so many relationships are so fleeting these days, men come and go, but a child stays! What is more important, do you think, at that point? Having some guy who you don’t even know if he’s gonna stick around, or having a baby? Baby is way more serious and lifechanging, than some relationship, some guy who can come and go, and cheat, or whatever.

    ***

    I never said I get money from my husband, I DO NOT and I will not. What I did want was somebody who could help with the baby which he is capable [of]. Yea, it is like a free male nanny who I also have sex with.”

    Every woman has two directives, in this order of importance:
    1. Have as many living babies as possible.
    2. Secure provisioning and protection for said babies.

    Note Windy’s description of what she wanted. The most important thing in her life is reproduction: having a baby. She was willing to do whatever it took to fulfill that directive, including becoming a single mom. All else was secondary: considerations of finding a suitable husband; providing for the baby, having enough money, who would help her raise the baby, who would help her care for the baby.

    Windy’s husband and her child’s father is secondary. It is not about what he wants. First and foremost, the marriage and their living arrangements are about what SHE wants and needs. He does not support her — he gives her no money. He is expected to “help with the baby” (not HIS baby, not OUR baby, “THE” baby.) She sees him as a gigolo of sorts. He is “a free male nanny who I also have sex with”. He is there, he exists, to serve her purposes.

    Of course she points out her husband gets plenty out of the deal: sex with a pretty woman, emotional support, etc. All well and good. But it is clear to me that Windy has the upper hand: She supports him. She has clear expectations for her husband. He helps her, she does not help him. It is her life; he is a supporting player.

    This is all well and good for Windy, perhaps. But it is not a model on which most men want to base a marriage; nor most women, I think.

  129. lavazza1891 says:

    “Censoring is a sign of weakness.”

    I’m quite sure you’re all over MSM, feminist blogs/forums and Churchian blogs/forums telling them that.

  130. deti says:

    Every woman’s prime directive: Reproduction. Have as many living babies as possible.

    Her secondary directive: Secure provisioning and protection for said babies through any means necessary.

    If the prime directive cannot be fulfilled, then she reverts to a tertiary directive: Secure provisioning and protection for herself through any means necessary.

    A man really has one, and only one, directive: Spread his seed as far and wide as possible. Have as much sex as possible with as many different women as possible, so as to propagate the species.

    His distant secondary directive is to ensure survival of his offspring to adulthood. This directive is very unimportant to him unless and until one woman agrees to be the mother of his children and consents to live with him.

    Men should understand these primitive directives because they drive much of the SMP.

  131. Opus says:

    This is Dalrock’s blog.

    We are his guests, and are all permitted to make our point no matter how feeble or off-base it might appear to be to others.

    We might learn something – that is why we are here.

    As such, personal attacks on commentors are in my view both unhelpful and disruptive. The attack on Deti, which presumes a lot (that Deti does not understand himself and that in any event he would need to do so before commenting) is psycho-babble of the worst sort, as is the appeal to Psychotherapy (a dubious occupation at best). The patronising continues with Deti being called a ‘friend’ a ‘newbie’ with the advice to ‘grow up’ and so it continues. Perhaps he hit a nerve; perhaps in fact Deti is only too good at seeing through others writings to the writer behind them.

    For what it is worth (and I do not believe I have commented on Deti’s contributions before) I always find his comments worth while, but even if I did not do so, I would not, I think, feel it my place to lecture him on what or how he wrote, or what particular qualifications he needs before commenting. If there are any I am sure Dalrock will let him know.

  132. Sunshine, it is no secret that patronising women turns them on.

    I shall add “cupcake” to my list to use on my wife. Thanks.

  133. Sunshine says:

    DC – haha, you’re right and you’re welcome. :) But I asked D to delete my comment. On re-reading it, I felt it was a little inappropriate due to what could be construed as a slightly flirtatious tone.

  134. That’s OK, Sunshine. It just shows you are a woman. I am not squeamish. And I will be trying out “cupcake” on my wife.

  135. P Ray says:

    “And guys, whether girls lose 90% or 10% of their beauty by age 30 is not even a side issue, it’s just a stupid, meaningless detail.”
    Paying BMW prices for a Hyundai, is a stupid, meaningless action.

  136. TFH says:

    And guys, whether girls lose 90% or 10% of their beauty by age 30 is not even a side issue, it’s just a stupid, meaningless detail.”

    Since a woman’s fertility ages at the same rate as her external appearance, AND a woman’s looks are the most important factor in her attractiveness to men, this is not a ‘stupid, meaningless detail’, but rather THE most important detail of all.

  137. P Ray says:

    ^ Not to forget if she wants a child YOU’LL be paying for the fertility treatments.
    If you can’t afford that or have another use for that money, is it abuse?

  138. Retrenched says:

    “Paying BMW prices for a Hyundai, is a stupid, meaningless action.”

    Especially for one with 250K miles on it.
    Especially for one with 250K miles on it, when you know lots of other drivers got to take joy rides in it for free.

    All that, for a BMW price? Wow, where do I sign?

  139. O-Tony says:

    Is W.C a woman? I thought she was a man up until she mentioned that 90% of womans beauty being gone by 30 not really that important really made my hairs stand. “WTF, what man would write this?”

    I really hate people who pass themselves off as another gender. SO dishonest.

  140. an observer says:

    deti,

    A long time ago i went on a date with a girl who had an aging grandmother.

    All i remember from the date was her desire to have a child before said g/m keeled over.

    She was, as most were, a typical young eap, meaning she had no concrete plans on how to become a good wife and mother. IAW, she had a job, lots of debt, short hair and early onset baby fever.

    There was no second date. . .

  141. Suz says:

    O-Tony,
    I initially thought WC was female, then just a somewhat strange man. Then a fool. Now an impostor?

  142. I had to comment on this gem from Windy:

    “So technically, the whole Western civilization at the moment is living off the women. ”

    Windy, women invent, build and repair effectively nothing. Don’t kid yourself, Sweetie. If it were not for the patriarchy, you would be living in a mud hut.

  143. There was a young Muslim woman called “null” on a few sites a while back, including on Alte’s site. She was good. She got married recently. She is an Australian girl, and she checked out as far as I can see.

    There may have been another “null”, but that is the one I know.

    There is also a subcontinental woman who uses a lot of aliases, including Marvellous White Male (sic), and who seems to be some kind of crank with an axe to grind. She sometimes pretends to be a man. She was on Alte’s blog for a while.

  144. By subcontinental, I mean from India or Pakistan etc.

    The Null from Alte’s site was consistent and believable. As people say, she “checked out”. I think she was a Bangladeshi. She was a smart kid. I hope she was real, because she told me that she elected to take her husband’s name (not a Muslim tradition) because of some remarks of mine.

  145. Coupla things.

    The thing about the y chromosome evolving faster is pretty dubious. Men and women evolve together.

    A woman who looks after herself can remain attractive for many years. My wife is 51 and I still want to have sex with her. She looked better at 25, but she is OK in my eyes still.

    Feminists do bullshit. Men should stick to the facts. Not all women lose all their looks at 30.

  146. an observer says:

    David,

    I hear what you are saying.

    Possible that the tender ministrations of an out-of-control hamster leaves visible marks.

    Women that choose to come under authority may avoid the worst of it, perhaps.

  147. TFH says:

    David Collard,

    Anecdotes are not data. Just because some women somewhere was attractive at 51, or even got pregnant at 45, does nothing to refute the fact that the vast majority start losing it quickly after 30..

    Again, vast majority. Not the same thing as 100%.

    That is the point of the main article too – that after 30 it gets much harder for most women. That does not mean no woman ever landed a good man after 30 ever..

  148. Yes, TFH, but it is important not to exaggerate. Plenty of women are plenty do-able over 30. Not as do-able as at 20, but still feasible. I have written elsewhere about the extraordinary rate at which women’s peak beauty declines. But a woman who looks after herself can be presentable for quite a while.

    an observer, I feel there is something in what you say. Women flourish and last best when they are “under authority” as you say. Too many men would naturally put miles on a woman’s clock.

  149. poester99 says:

    As to the natural bargain.. I don’t intend to „teach” anything to anybody here. I just invite you to be realistic and look honestly at what kind of a society you have created for yourselves

    Oh the great power I have to control everything because I’m a man.

    I think I like most was stuck simply reacting and adjusting to to new societal paradigms which were entirely out of my control and likely NOT for MY benefit but for YOURS

    From your tone, it looks like you are not completely happy with the result.

  150. Lavazza says:

    TFH: I agree with the principle, but it’s hard to give a picture that is correct in every detail. For a childless never married man who wants children, evaluating a woman who wants to marry and have children, your figures seem very correct for me. But for a married man with children evaluating his wife whom he married young the figures might go up (but they might as well go down, for her letting herself go or developing a nasty personality). Two women with identical looks will get higher or lower points depending on if she and/or the man wants children and/or wants to marry. A man who is ambivalent on having children (or more children) might decide to have children if the woman is young and hot enough, or settle for an older and less good looking woman, if she can convince him she does not want marriage/children.

    So in conclusion your figures are correct for a childless single woman’s chances of getting married/having children and what she has to offer a single childless man who wants marriage/children.

  151. imnobody says:

    I just invite you to be realistic and look honestly at what kind of a society you have created for yourselves

    Well, this is the society feminists and women fought hard for. But it’s good for men. As someone who has experienced the Patriarchy (during my youth in my native country), I’m not a big fan of its.

    Yes, young betas got married back then. So what? Sex dried quickly and you had to slave yourself to support a homely woman asking, demanding and bitching forever with no chance of divorcing her and with a mediocre lay once in a blue moon.

    I have seen it in my own family. Young men think that feminism is preventing them to have a pleasant marriage with a hottie. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    In our age, men are desired by women the same as in any other age (that is, alphas are desired and betas despised). But now men are free. And this makes a HUGE difference.

  152. Lavazza says:

    might go up in comparison with your figures, that is.

  153. Lavazza says:

    imnobody: I don’t know how it works in practice, but the theory must be that patriarchy makes all or most men look and feel more alpha, at the same time as it makes all or most women look and feel more beta.

    But you are right in pointing out that men in today’s west don’t have to invest in women and children (other than through taxes, that are not negligable).

  154. Women dislike patriarchy but they like patriarchs.

  155. imnobody says:

    Imagine being Windy. Imagine that you believe all your life that men owe economic support to women only because women are “young, fresh” (the “natural bargain”: that is, prostitution: money for sex and beauty). Imagine that, since the age of 4, you daydream about this man who is going to swept you off your feet, provide for you completely so you don’t have to work anymore.

    Imagine that your 20′s are spent chasing alphas believing one of them will put you in an early retirement so you won’t be one woman who “will have to toil until the rest of her life just like she did in her 20s.”

    Imagine wanting marriage and kids from an alpha (“her partner”) but this alpha refusing to commit. Imagine being desperate during your 30′s and having to settle with a beta guy who is earning less than you, only to have a free male nanny. Imagine having to economically support these guy for the rest of your marriage, you, a wannabe princess turned into a breadwinner.

    Imagine all that. Would you not be angry and bitter with your princess’ dreams being broken? Would you not be dissatisfied about the way your life has turned out? Would you not feel cheated because men have not supported your sorry ass for the rest of your life and you have to work the same as men?

  156. imnobody says:

    imnobody: I don’t know how it works in practice, but the theory must be that patriarchy makes all or most men look and feel more alpha, at the same time as it makes all or most women look and feel more beta.

    Something of this is true but not to the extent you imagine. My grandsfather’s children were four. Out of these, only one is alpha (he is rich). The other ones are beta (one is already dead: I’m 42). The only happy marriage was the one with the alpha. I have been witness during decades about the unhappiness of the other marriages. In the rest of marriages, the woman only demanded, nagged and despised their husbands. This is the last generation of the Patriarchy in my country. My father is very religious: this is why he hasn’t divorced my mother, but his life is a living hell. I love my mother but she has given lots of shit to my father during 43 years.

    The same percentage can be found in my neighbors and people in general. Yes, we have to pay taxes now but we can do whatever we want.

  157. Most of the men of my father’s generation were not very happy. They had some recompense, in notional concepts of male headship of the family, but they were stressed. Today they wouldn’t even have the recompense.

    I recently retired after 30 years in the workforce. It was a pretty good career, but even so, about half of that time it was pretty much drudgery and breadwinning. I don’t feel awfully sorry for women who are making the belated discovery that a “career” is often just a job. I had some real highs, but also some long lows.

    My wife has always been a fairly dutiful helpmeet type. And now she is stepping up to earn some more money, although she is still part time. I think she deserves a chance now.

  158. As for years of shit from a wife, I wish to God that men were not lied to about how to handle a woman. It would save so much human suffering. Since I really got the message, life with my wife has continued to improve.

  159. imnobody says:

    As for years of shit from a wife, I wish to God that men were not lied to about how to handle a woman.

    It was necessary to lie about the true female nature to make the Patriarchy feasible. I remember being told in my youth that women only wanted love, marriage and being treated well. Without these lies, the Patriarchy crumbles.

    These were useful lies to maintain the patriarchal society. My father’s generation was imbibed in them. The white knights who enabled feminism believed all these lies and that’s what made feminism possible.

  160. Well, patriarchy lasted a very long time, and it has not disappeared everywhere even today. So it can be made to work. Arguably it is the default human condition. Only very rich societies can afford feminism.

  161. imnobody says:

    Of course, patriarchy can be made to work, provided that men are the ones who are willing to slave themselves for the system. Patriarchy lies on the shoulders of men.

    Every patriarchal society has strove for making men work for it. Men were condemned to lifelong celibacy and social disgrace if they were not willing to provide. A husband who wouldn’t provide for his wife went to the prison, a wife who wouldn’t have sex with her husband (or cook for her husband)…nothing happened.

    Of course, our decadent feminist society is only a moment in time and will crumble and a new patriarchy will arise. But this is not to say that patriarchy is the best system for men. Men are happier than ever in this decadent system.

  162. imnobody, which bears out my point that laws have always been harsh on men. Just harsh in different ways.

    Some aspects of modernity have been good for me. Having a wife in part time work, for example. There are winners and losers in any social change.

  163. imnobody says:

    Agreed, David. My point is some men (not you) idealize the Patriarchy and they think that the Patriarchy was a “Daddy knows best” paradise.

    In reality, biology shows us that men are the disposable sex and every society is a matriarchy in disguise, meaning that it reflects the women’s biological interests. Every society has its winners and its losers.

    But in this society, you can refuse to play. In previous societies, if you were not willing to be celibate, you were not allowed not to play.

  164. Höllenhund says:

    Men were treated somewhat reasonably in bygone patriarchies because their physical labor and military service was necessary to prop up the system. As soon as that need largely disappeared, they were jettisoned.

  165. Arguably, society has always been run by a coterie of top alpha males. Feminism being simply their latest agency of social control.

  166. I should add that for a brief period, Everyman became his own master, and a king in his own home. But Government soon stepped in again. From a serf to a king to a serf to the feminist state in the blink of an eye.

  167. Opus says:

    We all must live in our own time, and frankly the thought of having lived an adult life in the period when my parents or grandparents flourished does not appeal to me at all. In many ways my generation have been incredibly fortunate, although the ability (in my case) to form any lasting relationship and reproduce saddens me occasionally – such is life. What however are we to make of people like our visiting Hamste,r Windy, who, if I have understood her correctly wasted her twenties on the wrong man (no marriage) – as did so many of her contemporaries; settles for a man who is not the Prince she thought she had been promissed; and worse, although she herself is an empowered young woman with a career finds that in the modern world it is her husband who is the less financially empowered than she, so that she is going to have to work to the end and perhaps provide for him. (My mother’s generation of course complained that they were not allowed to work and were reduced to an endless round of coffee mornings – true slavery!).

    So although I am on balance happier than my Father might have been with his responsibility and only one income to the family, my freedoms have been attained at the price of some very socially undesirable consequences: Female Slutdom; Male Impecunity; Fatherless Children.

  168. slwerner says:

    David Collard – There was a young Muslim woman called “null” on a few sites a while back, including on Alte’s site.

    I cannot be absolutely certain that the null who identified herself as both a woman and a Muslim on Alte’s previous blog was one-and-the-same as the null who pestered The Spearhead for a time, continuously denying to be a woman; but, it was just after The Spearhead null stopped posting that the null on Alte’s site first started posting there. Maybe just a coincidence? Or maybe not.

    The null on the Spearhead had often used the tact of pretending to be concerned about Men’s Rights issue, but chided the posters there that they were doing the wrong things, and making themselves look like idiots. Thus, when this W. C. Taqiyya took a similar tact with deti, it made me curious enough to search the word “Taqiyya”, which turns out to be an Arabic term for deceptive practices and tactics (http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm).

    Now, maybe it’s just another coincidence that this new pest chose a word the Muslims use for deception, and maybe it has nothing at all to do with the null from Alte’s blog also being Muslim. And Maybe it’s just another coincidence that this new pest attacks posers (who are very effective a conveying a message) in the same manner as the null from the Spearhead. Maybe?

    And, maybe it’s also just one more coincidence that since I first posted the meaning of “Taqiyya”, that W. C. Taqiyya seems to have stopped posting here?

  169. Lavazza says:

    imnobody: “But in this society, you can refuse to play. In previous societies, if you were not willing to be celibate, you were not allowed not to play.”

    Well, ascetics striving for ultimate freedom (liberation) are still celibates without possessions. The householder is the pillar of everything else.

    Sannyasins cannot live if there are no Grihasthas, but no Sannyasin is expected to exploit a Grihastha. The Grihastha is supposed to feed the Sannyasin out of the facilities he has which he can easily share without diminishing his own needs. Where the donor is not fit enough to give a donation, he need not give a donation.

  170. TFH says:

    I would say that the timing of the upsurge in the charts coincides with the arrival of Facebook and other social media.

    Facebook is very effective in duping women into thinking their marriage prospects are high, as they get tons of compliments from loserish betas, which they wrongly think translates into marriage prospects (particularly when a 32 year old woman still has photos up from when she was 28).

    Call it the ‘Facebook Effect’ in terms of leading women off the cliff..

  171. Anonymous age 70 says:

    When you first claimed there was no marriage strike, a mathematical impossibility, I was one of your strongest critics. Just on that. On most things, you are brilliant. For some reason, you got that idea in your head and have no intention of giving it up, no matter the facts.

    I was not at all angry. Somewhat dismayed that you could mess up something so simple. I have posted a number of times the marriage rates over the years, and those numbers cannot possibly be consistent with anything but a major marriage strike.

    So, there is no point in posting those marriage rate numbers again.

    One poster here correctly pointed out your numbers are history, and not relevant to current issues. Also, several pointed out very sharp changes in the last 4 years. Yep, that is what the future holds. With a bit of knowledge of calculus, you would see your error.

  172. T. Chan says:

    slwerner: Someone using the name WCT is a regular commentor at certain paleocon sites so it may be the same one. If that is the case, he may be older, etc.

  173. A♠ says:

    @ Dalrock [June 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm],

    To the seemingly innumerable women like Windy, I usually say:

    I understand.

    I just don’t rationalize.

  174. slwerner

    I am inclined to think it is a coincidence. The Null at Alte’s site checked out. With a bit of research, I could probably find out her name. There cannot be too many women answering her description, attending university in a particular discipline, and so on. Also, she was consistent. She followed a believable trajectory, eventually marrying and I have not seen her about of late. Also, you can tell a lot about a person’s character and intellect from their Internet comments. This Null was clearly what she claimed to be. A Muslim girl doing a good degree at an Australian university. I had several exchanges with her, and she was completely consistent and, in fact, a pleasure to converse with.

    The other null, at Spearhead, I vaguely remember. It may have been the same girl, trying on a different persona. Maybe. On the other hand, null is an obvious enough choice for an Internet handle.

    The other woman I mentioned used to pop up everywhere, under a variety of names. I got the feeling that she was some deracinated woman from South Asia, who had been poorly treated by a man in some way. She had characteristic obsessions. She was not pleasant to deal with, and I detected some penis envy and general resentment. The WCT here may have been her. Or maybe not.

  175. Pingback: Where would we be? | The Left Half

  176. beta_plus says:

    And those panicked spinsters will work very hard and do everything in their power to get married – except lose weight

  177. Pingback: Whistling through the graveyard? | Dalrock

  178. Pingback: Will betas shrug? | Dalrock

  179. Pingback: Over promise, under deliver | Dalrock

  180. MarkyMark says:

    While women may be the INITIAL stimulus of the decline in marriage, it’s men who administer the coup de grace. How so? Men, when they’re younger (under 30) want to have that someone special in their lives. That someone special blows ‘em off to play career chick & ride the carousel. As men age, their sex drives cool; their desire for women wanes. When the career chicks/carouselers are ready for marriage, the men have decided that it’s not worth it; the men have decided that women did ‘em a favor, and that they’ll continue living as happy bachelors, thank you very much…

  181. Pingback: Man up and marry those sluts, Friday light reading edition. | Dalrock

  182. DaringHart13 says:

    Wow….I just read Windy’s comments in this thread…

    (((shudder!!!)))

    Poor guy. …..he doesn’t even know how she really feels about him. For all you young guys reading this thread….Windy’s are a dime a dozen….. they are everywhere…..they could give a shit about you as a human being; you’re nothing more than a sperm donor and provider. RUN!

    Great questions deti:

    So, men: After reading how Windy feels about her marriage, how do you feel about wifing up the 30 year old with the double digit partner count who’s pressing you for the ring and the date? Does it make you feel secure about your investment? Does it make you feel good about your chances of avoiding the divorce meat grinder? How confident are you that a Windy clone won’t say to you, 4 or 5 years in, “I’m not haaaaappy!” How do you feel you measure up (heh) to the man (men) she wanted to marry before she met you? Does a wife saying about you “sure, I love you” sound like she’s head over heels for you? Do you think she’ll eagerly sex you up like you want?

    So, men: does a girl like Windy sound like a good deal to you?

    Its refreshing to know many men aren’t putting up with this conduct anymore. For those that are……damn bro……

  183. Pingback: Sexbots Leading to Rise of…. Things Unforeseen? « stagedreality

  184. Pingback: Losing control of the narrative. | Dalrock

  185. Sam says:

    It’s obvious that most people who post here are old, ignorant, bitter and unable to get a partner of any age shape or attractiveness. So many bitter men here. If they were able to attract a good woman, they would be a lot happier and would have a much better attitude towards women. You can deny it all you like boys but to the rest of us normal happier world this is obvious.

  186. koevoet says:

    Sam = Samantha, not Samuel. Shaming language, FTW!

  187. Yes, classic shaming language.

  188. Brendan says:

    Never mind that David, deti, Anonymous Age 70, slwerner and, of course, the author of the post himself, are all married men. Pfft.

  189. Pingback: Toxic Waters « M3

  190. Pingback: How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state. | Dalrock

  191. Marriage was an institution designed to protect women…. it appears that now women do not need that protection and hence the institution is outdated. Further, Marriage has become a tool to Rob Men and extort his hard earned money- and hence many Men see marriage as a trap. The institution has outlived its utility and must be banned.

  192. Pingback: More grim news for carousellers hoping to jump at the last minute. | Dalrock

  193. Pingback: The Marriage Strike seems to be working. | Bohème Chinois

  194. Pingback: The Wisdom of Submission to Feminism - The Spearhead

  195. kevin says:

    I think markymark hit the nail on the head. When i was in my 20′s I REALLY wanted a wife and to start a family. When i hit 30 (im 31) all of a sudden i realized that I dodged a serious bullet. Now i look at facebook and see that most of the women my age are falling apart. Also, most of my married friends tell me not to get married. This really is a generation of women who were waiting till they were 30 to start looking for a husband. The problem is that when men hit 30 they smarten up to whats going on, and realize its alot easier, and far more convenient to just have girlfriends. Men and women are equal now, my female peers had their peak value years and now im gonna enjoy mine by playing the field.

  196. Opus says:

    I am greatly interested in whether the marriage strike is male or female driven: I quite see Dalrock’s point that with (female) never marrieds piling-up, the point will be reached where a considerable number will miss out either on that Banker they all desire or atall. This is inevitable.

    I have just come across a Profile on OKCupid of an Indian Woman (Documented British – to use the current jargon) – quite nice looking – but not Ashwirya Rai – suitably slim, and aged thirty-three. How come she has yet to find ‘a suitable boy’ through the usual arranged marriage system? Perhaps she wants a Caucasian? – her photo in B&W makes her look white but when you click on the second picture in colour you can she that she is not. Nowhere in her Profile does she explain what it is that she can offer a prospective Husband, but we learn the usual nonsense, including:

    1. She is a realist and an Idealist – surely some contradiction there
    2. She values Honesty – as if anyone valued duplicity
    3. She values family life but is career orientated – further implied contradiction I would say and when do men ever talk of their ‘career’?
    4. She is a Professional Healthcare worker (as if there were a Healthcare amateur – does she mean Doctor?) having graduated from a PhD program – that accounts for her twenties
    5. She spends a lot of time thinking about travelling and holiday – she wants sex
    6 She is looking to meet someone who captivates her – she wants an Alpha
    7. She wants a single male aged 31 – 38 – no mention of ethnicity

    There are other give-aways that she is only too conscious of being Indian in England – and thus somewhat Alien.

    Suppose that in a year or two she meets someone, but then it goes wrong for some reason, as frequently happens – she will be forty before she knows it and competing against younger prettier girls. A great pity I would say, but an inevitable consequence of chasing paper to land Mr D’Arcy.

  197. Pingback: Is Egg Freezing the Next Birth Control Pill? | Red Pill Theory

  198. Pingback: Gimme That Old Time Girligion! « stagedreality

  199. Pingback: The Coming Suicide Epidemic

  200. Sellie says:

    I read a few responses and was horrified by the sexist, hostile, misogynist remarks. It is no wonder so many women out there are single if this is the mindset.

  201. Pingback: Why Is Female Sex Tourism Embraced By Society?

  202. Robert Slanton says:

    Not sure if this has been mentioned in another thread.

    Now that the 2012 data is out another year of big increases for never married:

    2011 to 2012

    25-29 from 46.8 to 47.5
    30-34 from 23.1 to 25.1
    35-39 from 14.0 to 15.4
    40-44 from 10.6 to 11.3
    45-49 from 8.6 to 9.0

    [D: Thanks. I updated the charts with 2012 data last November. We should be due for 2013 data any week now, and I’ll update the charts again for a new post.

  203. greyghost says:

    Sellie
    It’s about time men got that mindset. I’m proud of these guys for finally speaking the truth about how life is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s