Of course you would discredit it, most people don’t come to *lifestyle magazines* for scientific truths, you look at peer reviewed thoroughly referenced articles / journals. Other comments have mentioned how this magazine actually misrepresents the data it claims to be ‘sourcing from.’
i can’t begin to understand why this post or your comment got so many upvotes, it’s so painfully reactionary, and above all else really fucking embarrassing. ‘MRA’s’ paying this propaganda any attention at all, and somehow failing to realise how this exact narrative is a fundamental force in maintaining inequality and pushing sexist and oppressive gender stereotypes.
*from their site*
> embracing our nature despite the world telling us we should hate the realities of our biology
Reducing men and women to mindless beasts, socialisation, free will and agency clearly aren’t important to these people. Gotta love a victim complex too
> We strive to back our editorial decisions with science and sound data, but also acknowledge that critical thinking is just as important in times of uncertainty
Awfully convenient to be able to resort to an appeal to nature fallacy whenever you have nothing to back up your agenda
The magazine clearly has a strict biological determinist approach to answers in life. An approach to society that is widely considered wholly inappropriate on its own in any vaguely academic circle (i.e. much too reductionist, it typically ignores socialisation / context / individual differences / culture / race / etc etc etc).
It’s such a shame that so many ppl have fallen for the reactionary bait
The study does not actually say that. It's a bad article.
The actual study never asked about happiness. The only way I can assume the author extrapolated "happiness" was from the handful of questions that asked about ?loneliness? compared it to relationship status.
It finds that people who are married are less likely to report that they are lonely, compared to co-habitating, in a relationship, and not in a relationship. It does not mention children.
[Link to the Study is on This Page](https://csed.byu.edu/american-family-survey)
If married women are so happy, then why is the divorce rate so high? Conservative women get divorced all the time, I mean anecdotally, there’s MTG, Boebert and Matt Walsh’s wife, and that’s just the recent ones off the top of my head. Also, what does this have to do with men’s rights?
it specifically says married people are significantly happier than their peers. Also, by that logic anyone who gets a divorce simply didn’t “embrace marriage” which is just not true.
I agree people should work on their problems, but I still don’t understand how they are economically incentivized to get divorced,it’s expensive. In fact, I’ve known people who remain married and live completely separate lives, just because it’s too difficult and expensive to get divorced.
No, they’re both just really poor, they both make minimum wage. I see, yes I agree, it’s not an issue if both people make close to the same amount of money and share custody. However, you’re right about women starting to make more, I watched a good video recently called “why men and boys are struggling” and there was a statistic that 40% of women now make more than 50% of men.
>Why would a woman stay married to a man if she can get him to pay her the same as a part time job?
Financially, it makes more sense for her to stay married. A couple years of alimony and/or a percentage of the man's income as child support is less than access to his full income and assets. And, there are fewer expenses for a couple vs. two single people.
This reminds me of one time my husband jokingly said I was going to leave him and take half his stuff. So I pointed out that if I stayed with him, I got all his stuff. He couldn't argue with that logic.
My SIL and BIL are currently getting divorced, and neither can afford a house in their current neighborhood. They're stuck living together until they sell the current one, so they have money for separate homes. Overall, both will take a significant reduction in lifestyle.
Where you can expect to be the primary custody winner, expect to retain the main residence, and expect alimony/child support there is no economic incentive to maintain a relationship with a difficult partner.
Women ending most marriages is evidence of the economic incentives at play, as before marriage, the gender split is even in who ends a relationship.
Introducing joint custody as a starting point and reduction of alimony (for example Scotland expects a clean break) would reduce divorce rates as people would recalculate their likely outcomes.
>no economic incentive to maintain a relationship with a difficult partner.
Not true. The economic incentive would be the rest of the husband's income that she loses out on by getting divorced. Is that *enough* incentive to stay? Well, that's all down to personal variables.
I'll consider my own marriage as a real world example.
There's 21 years left on our mortgage and I'd have to buy out my spouse's half of the equity if I kept the house. Then I'd probably have to sell it to pay off the mortgage and find a cheaper house. Overall, I wouldn't gain anything here.
I wouldn't get any alimony since we make the same. But I still wouldn't have received alimony at the biggest income spread we've had (me 52k/him 70k).
We have one child. 17% of his current income for child support is 13k/year.
Add it all up, and I'd have access to 13k a year of his income, divorced, and 75k of it married. The "economic incentive" to stay married is 62k per year.
I'm not saying divorce courts aren't biased (they are) but claiming there's no financial benefit for women staying married is ignoring the truth that nearly everyone takes a hit to their style of living when they divorce.
Let's be accurate. Women are incentivized to leave marriages. And the greater the economic disparity, the greater the benefit.
A woman working as a waitress married to a middle manager for a large corp for 10 years will easily walk out of that marriage set for life.
Considering Steven torpedoed his marriage, I wouldn't have personally named him if i was going to make the case for conservative women divorcing without a good reason.
My point wasn’t that they divorce for no good reason. I was commenting about the assertion the article makes about conservative married women being significantly happier. In another comment, I listed several sources showing conservative states have the highest rates of divorce. However, I imagine conservative states also have a higher rate of marriage as well that may affect that statistic.
You're asking why these women get divorced and you cite Steven Crowder who abused his wife on camera
I know what sub I'm on but there are many times where women are justified in leaving a shitty and abusive marriage
I completely agree, my comment was more about the fact that I don’t think conservative married women are significantly happier. In another comment, I listed several sources that show divorce is higher in conservative states.
I think people continue to struggle with the purpose of modern marriage and what warrants a divorce. I’ve often wondered why get married if you just get divorced when it gets hard? Why not just have a monogamous relationship without getting married if you’re not willing to endure hardship for your marriage? What is the benefit of getting married in the first place?
There are many people who would not consider the way Steven crowder treated his wife in that video to be grounds for divorce, believing that he could grow and learn to be a better partner. Some believe that any physical violence is grounds for divorce and others believe divorce is only warranted if a partner fears for their life. I spoke to a Christian recently who believes a single act of physical violence does not warrant divorce, but a single act of infidelity does. In the context of men’s rights, divorce is about alimony, child custody and child support. Part of this can be resolved by both partners making the same amount of money. For the other two, child custody is the real issue, as if each partner makes roughly the same amount and have equal custody, there is no alimony or child support.
Women instincts are not well adjusted to the current hyper connected social networks.
They used to live in a world with less than 5-10 men to choose or have relationships with. Now thanks to social networks, that number is in the thousands, or more.
They are trapped in a loop where they always leave to find someone better until they go past the wall and suddenly can't find anyone better than the last one, and because they won't lower their standards, they usually stay alone forever.
Most women think like your friend, even if they don't openly say it.
Under 6'0 is a big no. And they already fucked one or two tall guys because tinder allows it, so they won't lower their standards. That's why there is a loneliness explosion in women.
Its like a man fucking a pornstar and don't settling for anything lower than that.
Short women instinctively see their own height as a shortcoming and seek taller men, but tall women not so much. I'm 5'7 in a good day, and many tall women my height or even higher, said I'm not short (they said it after I had sex with them so I believe them).
Exactly, how is this mens rights ?? " hurr durr you are happiest when you are wife and mother hurr durr hurr durr ". Imagine them seeing " men who join military are the happiest " they would lose their shit ! Yeah this doesn't fit the whole equality stuff at all...
Next they will find out that man that have frequent sex are the happiest too. Who would imagine that fulfilling your biological instincts would make you more wholesome.
Because feminists push a false narrative that women are better off single post divorce which encourages women to do so against their own interests and those of their spouse. The simultaneously push for punitive alimony and child support payments that fuck men over even when the women should be capable of taking care of themselves and when custody is split 50/50.
There was a study and book published on happiness that concluded that single women were happiest generally. The study was subsequently [debunked](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married-women-miserable-fake-paul-dolan-happiness) (the moron author totally misinterpreted the questions asked and methodology of the original research he relied on) but that didn't stop loads of feminist bloggers and 'journalists' from spreading the false narrative. A quick google will confirm.
I'm sorry but I agree with many here. This post is not relevant to this sub at all. If the main topic of the article was about men and marriage, then sure.
As a matter of fact, this post broke the first rule. It's better if you just delete this.
Please don't push this tradcon marriage nonsense in this sub. Men aren't safe if they are married. It doesn't matter if the women are happy leeching off men's resources when the men aren't.
and I thought this sub is about equality and freedom of choice kek, nah... men have equality and freedom of choice while women have to be mothers and wives. Same as in feminist subs where women have freedom and equality while men have responsibilities. Yeah uh... Im sick of gender rights subreddits for a looong time now, seems like humanity is just not ready to learn the truth. Due-caterpillar signing out forever... bye guys
When I dug into why studies had different findings it came down to what they were measuring and how they weighted things. When you measure the extra time parents spend dealing with unpleasant stuff like diapers, kids that won't sleep, doing extra laundry & dishes it's not really a surprise that that's a bigger number than the rewarding stuff like reading a bedtime story and having the child fall asleep in your arms, watching them take their first steps, and things like that.
When you ask parents with adult children if the positives outweighed the negatives, they mostly will tell you it was worth it. Partly because people tend to remember the good stuff more than the bad but also because we just weigh those good moments much more heavily than all the drudgery.
It's similar with why some studies find married people are happier and others say singles are happier.
All of this, my dude. Well done doing the legwork.
The topic of children tend to be a hard one as people can be quite extreme. I personally wont father any kids but i love dogs, i got a lovely bigboi.
And while i've gotten comments that i have a look in my eyes when i look at my doggo, thats been compared to parents looking at their kids. And while the years we've had has had its ups and downs, i remember the good moments far more than the bad, when it comes to having said dog.
It would be impossible to know my life if i didnt have my boi, so i considering the wonderful times, i cannot imagine it being better without him... and thats how parents love works... and causes the "oh its something else when its your own".
On the opposite side, it may be that the life without my dog would be far less restrictive. He has epilepsy, and i struggle with separation anxiety. So without him i would probably do more stuff i like, like going to the movies, restaurants, kink events... but as of now, i need a babysitter for that. And the reduced leftover money certianly affects how much i can save towards a home (rebuy, used to be a homeowner, no longer due to ex). And given i never had a dog, i may be very happy with my freedom, causing me to think how my life quality would be reduced by adding a dog.
And thats how we get happyness from no kids.
But at least the studies i've seen, indicates via self reporting that childless women are happyer than those with kids. But the lonelyness rate for men is higher for childfree than those with kids....
So im just assuming it comes down to how much you can follow what you want in life
Edit: self repporting also tends to follow someones own opinion on themselfs, and isn't reliable. Women tend to vote in the more extremes, men more towards a neuteral average, and this can heavily scew results
The article links directly to a pdf download of it.
>https://media.deseret.com/media/misc/pdf/afs/2022-american-family-survey.pdf?_ga=2.111126725.1920361153.1669614471-836100798.1669614471
Take the link at your own risk.
More tradcon propaganda. It didn't take long to point out that women are biologically superior parents, not saying but setting the stage, for more mother custody.
>Celebrating Men and Women, and Their Differences
Answers to why mothers often rank higher in the happiness department can most certainly be found in the brain. Studies show that men and women actually respond to newborn infant faces differently. When shown pictures of babies, women’s brains saw more activity in areas related to empathy and attention.
The same goes for hearing a baby cry. Women’s brains will actually hone in on the infant’s cries; however, men’s brains do not typically activate in the same way, leaving them more prone to daydreaming.
Think more people should be open to ceremonies over legal marriage. Too many men take too many L's in divorce due to spiteful manipulative women. And the courts are the real winners.
Divorce and child support court will always be the worst.
Why should we care. Avoid Marriage altogether. Don't cohabitate. Don't give these women spawn to financially and emotionally rape you with after they take you to the cleaners.
What has this got to do with men's rights?
This has absolutely nothing to do with the lives of men.
An extract from the rules for this subreddit:
>Rules
>These are rules that visitors must follow to participate. They can be used as reasons to report or ban posts, comments, and users. Communities can have a maximum of 15 rules.
>1 Must be related to men's rights
>REPORT REASON
>Off Topic - not related to men's rights
>APPLIES TO
>Posts only
>CREATED
>Fri, May 20, 2022
>FULL DESCRIPTION
>Submissions must be about men's rights issues. These should fall into one of these categories.
>Discrimination against men
>Issues that disproportionately affect men
>Problems that prevent men's issues being addressed
>Posts about other issues that have some relationship with men's rights should make it clear what that relationship is. These should be self-posts that explain the connection to men's rights.
MRA’s should too
parroting traditionalist propaganda is the last thing we need in the fight for equality
Especially when it is something actively contributing to gender discrimination in both men and women. Just look at common topics such as child custody or gender differences regarding sex and sexual assault. It’s all linked to the social implications this medieval approach to human behaviour peddles
I used to think I wanted to be a career woman and I worked for over a decade and have an advanced degree and everything. But now, I want to be a mom and stay mostly home. I want to try to find part time online work to supplement his income and so I can pay for some of my own things, but mostly I want to focus on a family. I would rather be devoted to my husband and my child (whom is on the way) than be devoted to a company.
reducing humans to this cave-man era standard is a really weird thing to do
the whole point of modern human society is we have surpassed and dominated ‘nature’, we can define our own purposes in life without being slaves to naturalistic nonsense. Of course we are influenced and can take inspiration from nature, but acting as if it is the sole provider for purpose is just so mind numbingly outdated. People have the liberty of free will, agency, they should be able to do what they want. Tradcon nuts can live their lives the way they want, and so can everyone else, it’s the beauty of freedom, the beauty of not having to care about weirdos telling you what your life purpose is
Obviously feminism wouldn’t support the oppressive notion that all women must strive to be baby/home makers as their primary purpose in life, it couldn’t be more dehumanising. MRA’s shouldn’t support this either, it’s not equality, it’s reducing men and women to beasts. It’s so disheartening to see when these strict values are the source of so many gender inequalities we face today
> I merely stated that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of all life, including humans, is to reproduce itself.
sure, but this is biological determinism, this is not an appropriate answer to ‘the meaning / purpose of life’. It applies to biology, but tends to ignore fields such as sociology and psychology. I explained how this approach is much too reductionist to be a particularly insightful model
> If you speak with old people I think you find they derive the most happiness from having created a happy, loving family, with children and grandchildren.
Makes sense, they were socialised and grew up in a society with differing norms and gender expectations. Hence why these types of models are often considered outdated or traditionalist
> Of course men and women can choose not to have children but most will lead sad empty lives.
this is relatively anecdotal, and above all else sort of a pointless generalisation? You can’t reasonably apply it to modern society, women are more than baby-makers and house-minders. Men are more than providers and household leaders. The family dynamic has shifted dramatically, it’s a lot more equal now that it was in the past
> A sad loss for a human race I’m sure…or probably not
and this is just… personal bias
I just have a problem with pedalling some dramatically simplistic, universal narrative for ‘true fulfilment in life’ when it clearly doesn’t accommodate the diversity in modern society
The stance you’re pushing does not encourage personal choice or agency or even equality, but rather reinforces outdated gender stereotypes that don’t fit in the more equal family types we see today
e.g. Just look at infertile men or women, where do they find purpose?
What about same-sex couples, are they doomed to live as you say… ‘sad empty lives’?
the reality is, one lonesome biologically determined guideline just isn’t appropriate. It makes infinitely more sense to remove any shame or personal anecdotes from the conversation, and encourage true self-actualisation. Like it or not your narrative can be oppressive when employed in the way you did
you don’t need to agree
you just need to show other people some basic level of respect to where they can live their lives without being harassed by your ‘holier than thou’ agenda
that’s the whole point, people have different opinions, and those differing opinions should be respected, it’s really silly to act as if EVERYONE should live according to your 1 shallow worldview
It might work for the odd fascist dictator but i hate to say it, modern multicultural society doesn’t tolerate such aggressive intolerance
you’re telling people how to live
i’m explaining to you that people should be able to live the way they want, without being judged or shamed
i’m criticising your shallow perspective, I’m allowed to do that lol
doesn’t that sound quite oppressive? You’re placing a expectation or strict guide on how other people should live their own lives
this idea of *predetermined roles* and *destiny*, where’s the agency? Free will? Acknowledgement of the individual? It doesn’t make much sense to me, it clearly doesn’t suit modern society, much too reductionist
i agree, it’s all a matter of personal opinion and freedom, you have the choice to pursue whatever lifestyle you want
I just mis-interpreted it as you agreeing with the wider rigid narrative of this lifestyle magazine. The magazine doesn’t at all reflect your self-actualising approach so it confused me
I’m just trying to come from the place that there is not ‘correct’ guideline, people do not have a set ‘destiny’ or ‘purpose’, rather it is individually constructed
when you said ‘fulfilling the roles you were destined for’ it just came across as a sweeping generalisation
Motherhood makes sense. It is a biological driver for most humans. I know being a Father brings me a lot of joy. But it's harder to enjoy for Men, because the vast majority of custody is awarded to women. And if we're lucky to have time with our kid it most likely involves a lengthy court case and piles of $$ being spent to enjoy a right automatically granted to women.
Marriage makes sense, for women, because it's a no lose situation. They've got an extra paycheck around. if they don't like the deal. They can bounce with kids, child support, possible alimony, and at least half the assets.
Men's rights for me is to afford Men the same legal rights. There has been progress. But society is too caught up on outcomes of women, they continue to maintain the outdated laws.
Wow. Who would have thought individuals who put others above themselves are the happiest? It's almost like we are biologically hardwired to live in tribes and help each other.
Weird how that thing people are biologically programmed to do is what gives them the most joy.
Dunno why people are downvoting me. It’s biological fact that our brains are programmed to reward us for perpetuating the human species. I’m not saying people have to do that, just that is in our genetics to do so.
Are you telling me that women who choose to prioritise sacrificing themselves to a corporate job so they can consume shallow products are unhappy ? What the hell ?
Who wants a loving family ? That’s not the best part of life , consumerism is
Now they will claim it as fake.Only study that is real is single women are happiest.They need to see it everyday to sleep at night
Well I don’t doubt single women in their early 20’s are happier than 50 something or older women (or even women over circa 35).
Of course you would discredit it, most people don’t come to *lifestyle magazines* for scientific truths, you look at peer reviewed thoroughly referenced articles / journals. Other comments have mentioned how this magazine actually misrepresents the data it claims to be ‘sourcing from.’ i can’t begin to understand why this post or your comment got so many upvotes, it’s so painfully reactionary, and above all else really fucking embarrassing. ‘MRA’s’ paying this propaganda any attention at all, and somehow failing to realise how this exact narrative is a fundamental force in maintaining inequality and pushing sexist and oppressive gender stereotypes. *from their site* > embracing our nature despite the world telling us we should hate the realities of our biology Reducing men and women to mindless beasts, socialisation, free will and agency clearly aren’t important to these people. Gotta love a victim complex too > We strive to back our editorial decisions with science and sound data, but also acknowledge that critical thinking is just as important in times of uncertainty Awfully convenient to be able to resort to an appeal to nature fallacy whenever you have nothing to back up your agenda The magazine clearly has a strict biological determinist approach to answers in life. An approach to society that is widely considered wholly inappropriate on its own in any vaguely academic circle (i.e. much too reductionist, it typically ignores socialisation / context / individual differences / culture / race / etc etc etc). It’s such a shame that so many ppl have fallen for the reactionary bait
The study does not actually say that. It's a bad article. The actual study never asked about happiness. The only way I can assume the author extrapolated "happiness" was from the handful of questions that asked about ?loneliness? compared it to relationship status. It finds that people who are married are less likely to report that they are lonely, compared to co-habitating, in a relationship, and not in a relationship. It does not mention children. [Link to the Study is on This Page](https://csed.byu.edu/american-family-survey)
Okay wow first thing I disagree with, not every woman sorry had to say that...
If married women are so happy, then why is the divorce rate so high? Conservative women get divorced all the time, I mean anecdotally, there’s MTG, Boebert and Matt Walsh’s wife, and that’s just the recent ones off the top of my head. Also, what does this have to do with men’s rights?
It says "women who embrace marriage and motherhood", not "women who happen to be married "
it specifically says married people are significantly happier than their peers. Also, by that logic anyone who gets a divorce simply didn’t “embrace marriage” which is just not true.
"Embrace" is the keyword here.
Is that not an confirmation bias then? Married women are happiest until they get divorced, then they were never really "married women"
[удалено]
What do you mean by incentivized to abandon each other?
[удалено]
I agree people should work on their problems, but I still don’t understand how they are economically incentivized to get divorced,it’s expensive. In fact, I’ve known people who remain married and live completely separate lives, just because it’s too difficult and expensive to get divorced.
[удалено]
No, they’re both just really poor, they both make minimum wage. I see, yes I agree, it’s not an issue if both people make close to the same amount of money and share custody. However, you’re right about women starting to make more, I watched a good video recently called “why men and boys are struggling” and there was a statistic that 40% of women now make more than 50% of men.
>Why would a woman stay married to a man if she can get him to pay her the same as a part time job? Financially, it makes more sense for her to stay married. A couple years of alimony and/or a percentage of the man's income as child support is less than access to his full income and assets. And, there are fewer expenses for a couple vs. two single people. This reminds me of one time my husband jokingly said I was going to leave him and take half his stuff. So I pointed out that if I stayed with him, I got all his stuff. He couldn't argue with that logic. My SIL and BIL are currently getting divorced, and neither can afford a house in their current neighborhood. They're stuck living together until they sell the current one, so they have money for separate homes. Overall, both will take a significant reduction in lifestyle.
Where you can expect to be the primary custody winner, expect to retain the main residence, and expect alimony/child support there is no economic incentive to maintain a relationship with a difficult partner. Women ending most marriages is evidence of the economic incentives at play, as before marriage, the gender split is even in who ends a relationship. Introducing joint custody as a starting point and reduction of alimony (for example Scotland expects a clean break) would reduce divorce rates as people would recalculate their likely outcomes.
>no economic incentive to maintain a relationship with a difficult partner. Not true. The economic incentive would be the rest of the husband's income that she loses out on by getting divorced. Is that *enough* incentive to stay? Well, that's all down to personal variables. I'll consider my own marriage as a real world example. There's 21 years left on our mortgage and I'd have to buy out my spouse's half of the equity if I kept the house. Then I'd probably have to sell it to pay off the mortgage and find a cheaper house. Overall, I wouldn't gain anything here. I wouldn't get any alimony since we make the same. But I still wouldn't have received alimony at the biggest income spread we've had (me 52k/him 70k). We have one child. 17% of his current income for child support is 13k/year. Add it all up, and I'd have access to 13k a year of his income, divorced, and 75k of it married. The "economic incentive" to stay married is 62k per year. I'm not saying divorce courts aren't biased (they are) but claiming there's no financial benefit for women staying married is ignoring the truth that nearly everyone takes a hit to their style of living when they divorce.
Let's be accurate. Women are incentivized to leave marriages. And the greater the economic disparity, the greater the benefit. A woman working as a waitress married to a middle manager for a large corp for 10 years will easily walk out of that marriage set for life.
Matt Walsh isnt divorced, he and his wife are not only still happily married but just welcomed babies 5 and 6 not that long ago.
Yes you are right, I meant Steven crowder
Considering Steven torpedoed his marriage, I wouldn't have personally named him if i was going to make the case for conservative women divorcing without a good reason.
My point wasn’t that they divorce for no good reason. I was commenting about the assertion the article makes about conservative married women being significantly happier. In another comment, I listed several sources showing conservative states have the highest rates of divorce. However, I imagine conservative states also have a higher rate of marriage as well that may affect that statistic.
Steven is doing a ruin your life any% speedrun lmao. Wouldn’t be surprised if he goes into irrelevance like Milo
You're asking why these women get divorced and you cite Steven Crowder who abused his wife on camera I know what sub I'm on but there are many times where women are justified in leaving a shitty and abusive marriage
I completely agree, my comment was more about the fact that I don’t think conservative married women are significantly happier. In another comment, I listed several sources that show divorce is higher in conservative states. I think people continue to struggle with the purpose of modern marriage and what warrants a divorce. I’ve often wondered why get married if you just get divorced when it gets hard? Why not just have a monogamous relationship without getting married if you’re not willing to endure hardship for your marriage? What is the benefit of getting married in the first place? There are many people who would not consider the way Steven crowder treated his wife in that video to be grounds for divorce, believing that he could grow and learn to be a better partner. Some believe that any physical violence is grounds for divorce and others believe divorce is only warranted if a partner fears for their life. I spoke to a Christian recently who believes a single act of physical violence does not warrant divorce, but a single act of infidelity does. In the context of men’s rights, divorce is about alimony, child custody and child support. Part of this can be resolved by both partners making the same amount of money. For the other two, child custody is the real issue, as if each partner makes roughly the same amount and have equal custody, there is no alimony or child support.
>If married women are so happy, then why is the divorce rate so high? That shows you how pretty miserable the other women are then.
Women instincts are not well adjusted to the current hyper connected social networks. They used to live in a world with less than 5-10 men to choose or have relationships with. Now thanks to social networks, that number is in the thousands, or more. They are trapped in a loop where they always leave to find someone better until they go past the wall and suddenly can't find anyone better than the last one, and because they won't lower their standards, they usually stay alone forever.
[удалено]
Most women think like your friend, even if they don't openly say it. Under 6'0 is a big no. And they already fucked one or two tall guys because tinder allows it, so they won't lower their standards. That's why there is a loneliness explosion in women. Its like a man fucking a pornstar and don't settling for anything lower than that.
[удалено]
Short women instinctively see their own height as a shortcoming and seek taller men, but tall women not so much. I'm 5'7 in a good day, and many tall women my height or even higher, said I'm not short (they said it after I had sex with them so I believe them).
Liberal women are the ones who initiate most divorces
That’s not true https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2014/01/16/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on-regional-divorce-rates/ https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126780035 https://divorce.com/blog/divorce-statistics/
that's why the stats say it's 31% and not 71%. Either way it's still higher than liberal women.
Can this website NOT ask me to dox my phone number to read past paragraph 2?
While this is interesting, i dont see how this is relevant for this sub.
Exactly, how is this mens rights ?? " hurr durr you are happiest when you are wife and mother hurr durr hurr durr ". Imagine them seeing " men who join military are the happiest " they would lose their shit ! Yeah this doesn't fit the whole equality stuff at all...
It fits the whole incel stuff though.
What incel stuff?
Next they will find out that man that have frequent sex are the happiest too. Who would imagine that fulfilling your biological instincts would make you more wholesome.
What's the relevance here?
Because feminists push a false narrative that women are better off single post divorce which encourages women to do so against their own interests and those of their spouse. The simultaneously push for punitive alimony and child support payments that fuck men over even when the women should be capable of taking care of themselves and when custody is split 50/50.
[удалено]
Sure but that's a very different thing from saying single women are happier than married women.
That... I'm unfamiliar with. I know Feminists who are anti marriage, but where did you hear them claim that about post divorce?
There was a study and book published on happiness that concluded that single women were happiest generally. The study was subsequently [debunked](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married-women-miserable-fake-paul-dolan-happiness) (the moron author totally misinterpreted the questions asked and methodology of the original research he relied on) but that didn't stop loads of feminist bloggers and 'journalists' from spreading the false narrative. A quick google will confirm.
I thought this was a men's rights sub not traditionalism. Fuck this shit, everyone is not the same.
I'm sorry but I agree with many here. This post is not relevant to this sub at all. If the main topic of the article was about men and marriage, then sure. As a matter of fact, this post broke the first rule. It's better if you just delete this.
Please don't push this tradcon marriage nonsense in this sub. Men aren't safe if they are married. It doesn't matter if the women are happy leeching off men's resources when the men aren't.
I dont see how this natalist bullshit is relevant to the sub.
and I thought this sub is about equality and freedom of choice kek, nah... men have equality and freedom of choice while women have to be mothers and wives. Same as in feminist subs where women have freedom and equality while men have responsibilities. Yeah uh... Im sick of gender rights subreddits for a looong time now, seems like humanity is just not ready to learn the truth. Due-caterpillar signing out forever... bye guys
Idk, heard plenty of sources claiming the childfree people are the happyest.
When I dug into why studies had different findings it came down to what they were measuring and how they weighted things. When you measure the extra time parents spend dealing with unpleasant stuff like diapers, kids that won't sleep, doing extra laundry & dishes it's not really a surprise that that's a bigger number than the rewarding stuff like reading a bedtime story and having the child fall asleep in your arms, watching them take their first steps, and things like that. When you ask parents with adult children if the positives outweighed the negatives, they mostly will tell you it was worth it. Partly because people tend to remember the good stuff more than the bad but also because we just weigh those good moments much more heavily than all the drudgery. It's similar with why some studies find married people are happier and others say singles are happier.
All of this, my dude. Well done doing the legwork. The topic of children tend to be a hard one as people can be quite extreme. I personally wont father any kids but i love dogs, i got a lovely bigboi. And while i've gotten comments that i have a look in my eyes when i look at my doggo, thats been compared to parents looking at their kids. And while the years we've had has had its ups and downs, i remember the good moments far more than the bad, when it comes to having said dog. It would be impossible to know my life if i didnt have my boi, so i considering the wonderful times, i cannot imagine it being better without him... and thats how parents love works... and causes the "oh its something else when its your own". On the opposite side, it may be that the life without my dog would be far less restrictive. He has epilepsy, and i struggle with separation anxiety. So without him i would probably do more stuff i like, like going to the movies, restaurants, kink events... but as of now, i need a babysitter for that. And the reduced leftover money certianly affects how much i can save towards a home (rebuy, used to be a homeowner, no longer due to ex). And given i never had a dog, i may be very happy with my freedom, causing me to think how my life quality would be reduced by adding a dog. And thats how we get happyness from no kids. But at least the studies i've seen, indicates via self reporting that childless women are happyer than those with kids. But the lonelyness rate for men is higher for childfree than those with kids.... So im just assuming it comes down to how much you can follow what you want in life Edit: self repporting also tends to follow someones own opinion on themselfs, and isn't reliable. Women tend to vote in the more extremes, men more towards a neuteral average, and this can heavily scew results
Same with men. Almost like we need each other. Wild, huh?
To no one's surprise
[удалено]
The article links directly to a pdf download of it. >https://media.deseret.com/media/misc/pdf/afs/2022-american-family-survey.pdf?_ga=2.111126725.1920361153.1669614471-836100798.1669614471 Take the link at your own risk.
What about men? Seriously.
More tradcon propaganda. It didn't take long to point out that women are biologically superior parents, not saying but setting the stage, for more mother custody. >Celebrating Men and Women, and Their Differences Answers to why mothers often rank higher in the happiness department can most certainly be found in the brain. Studies show that men and women actually respond to newborn infant faces differently. When shown pictures of babies, women’s brains saw more activity in areas related to empathy and attention. The same goes for hearing a baby cry. Women’s brains will actually hone in on the infant’s cries; however, men’s brains do not typically activate in the same way, leaving them more prone to daydreaming.
Sir, this is r/MensRights, not an incel forum. Lol.
Think more people should be open to ceremonies over legal marriage. Too many men take too many L's in divorce due to spiteful manipulative women. And the courts are the real winners. Divorce and child support court will always be the worst.
Why should we care. Avoid Marriage altogether. Don't cohabitate. Don't give these women spawn to financially and emotionally rape you with after they take you to the cleaners.
What has this got to do with men's rights? This has absolutely nothing to do with the lives of men. An extract from the rules for this subreddit: >Rules >These are rules that visitors must follow to participate. They can be used as reasons to report or ban posts, comments, and users. Communities can have a maximum of 15 rules. >1 Must be related to men's rights >REPORT REASON >Off Topic - not related to men's rights >APPLIES TO >Posts only >CREATED >Fri, May 20, 2022 >FULL DESCRIPTION >Submissions must be about men's rights issues. These should fall into one of these categories. >Discrimination against men >Issues that disproportionately affect men >Problems that prevent men's issues being addressed >Posts about other issues that have some relationship with men's rights should make it clear what that relationship is. These should be self-posts that explain the connection to men's rights.
The woke mob will throw every attempt at discounting this they can think of
MRA’s should too parroting traditionalist propaganda is the last thing we need in the fight for equality Especially when it is something actively contributing to gender discrimination in both men and women. Just look at common topics such as child custody or gender differences regarding sex and sexual assault. It’s all linked to the social implications this medieval approach to human behaviour peddles
First, this isn't men's rights... Second, if this was true, then why is divorce so high?
Oh surprise. What's next? men that embrace going out with friends to bars, hunting or fishing are happy too?
I used to think I wanted to be a career woman and I worked for over a decade and have an advanced degree and everything. But now, I want to be a mom and stay mostly home. I want to try to find part time online work to supplement his income and so I can pay for some of my own things, but mostly I want to focus on a family. I would rather be devoted to my husband and my child (whom is on the way) than be devoted to a company.
[удалено]
reducing humans to this cave-man era standard is a really weird thing to do the whole point of modern human society is we have surpassed and dominated ‘nature’, we can define our own purposes in life without being slaves to naturalistic nonsense. Of course we are influenced and can take inspiration from nature, but acting as if it is the sole provider for purpose is just so mind numbingly outdated. People have the liberty of free will, agency, they should be able to do what they want. Tradcon nuts can live their lives the way they want, and so can everyone else, it’s the beauty of freedom, the beauty of not having to care about weirdos telling you what your life purpose is Obviously feminism wouldn’t support the oppressive notion that all women must strive to be baby/home makers as their primary purpose in life, it couldn’t be more dehumanising. MRA’s shouldn’t support this either, it’s not equality, it’s reducing men and women to beasts. It’s so disheartening to see when these strict values are the source of so many gender inequalities we face today
[удалено]
> I merely stated that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of all life, including humans, is to reproduce itself. sure, but this is biological determinism, this is not an appropriate answer to ‘the meaning / purpose of life’. It applies to biology, but tends to ignore fields such as sociology and psychology. I explained how this approach is much too reductionist to be a particularly insightful model > If you speak with old people I think you find they derive the most happiness from having created a happy, loving family, with children and grandchildren. Makes sense, they were socialised and grew up in a society with differing norms and gender expectations. Hence why these types of models are often considered outdated or traditionalist > Of course men and women can choose not to have children but most will lead sad empty lives. this is relatively anecdotal, and above all else sort of a pointless generalisation? You can’t reasonably apply it to modern society, women are more than baby-makers and house-minders. Men are more than providers and household leaders. The family dynamic has shifted dramatically, it’s a lot more equal now that it was in the past > A sad loss for a human race I’m sure…or probably not and this is just… personal bias I just have a problem with pedalling some dramatically simplistic, universal narrative for ‘true fulfilment in life’ when it clearly doesn’t accommodate the diversity in modern society The stance you’re pushing does not encourage personal choice or agency or even equality, but rather reinforces outdated gender stereotypes that don’t fit in the more equal family types we see today e.g. Just look at infertile men or women, where do they find purpose? What about same-sex couples, are they doomed to live as you say… ‘sad empty lives’? the reality is, one lonesome biologically determined guideline just isn’t appropriate. It makes infinitely more sense to remove any shame or personal anecdotes from the conversation, and encourage true self-actualisation. Like it or not your narrative can be oppressive when employed in the way you did
[удалено]
you don’t need to agree you just need to show other people some basic level of respect to where they can live their lives without being harassed by your ‘holier than thou’ agenda that’s the whole point, people have different opinions, and those differing opinions should be respected, it’s really silly to act as if EVERYONE should live according to your 1 shallow worldview It might work for the odd fascist dictator but i hate to say it, modern multicultural society doesn’t tolerate such aggressive intolerance
[удалено]
you’re telling people how to live i’m explaining to you that people should be able to live the way they want, without being judged or shamed i’m criticising your shallow perspective, I’m allowed to do that lol
[удалено]
i was just outlying the vaguely authoritarian sentiments of your point, didn’t mean to offend ;(
It’s almost like that’s how it’s supposed to be…
[удалено]
doesn’t that sound quite oppressive? You’re placing a expectation or strict guide on how other people should live their own lives this idea of *predetermined roles* and *destiny*, where’s the agency? Free will? Acknowledgement of the individual? It doesn’t make much sense to me, it clearly doesn’t suit modern society, much too reductionist
[удалено]
i agree, it’s all a matter of personal opinion and freedom, you have the choice to pursue whatever lifestyle you want I just mis-interpreted it as you agreeing with the wider rigid narrative of this lifestyle magazine. The magazine doesn’t at all reflect your self-actualising approach so it confused me I’m just trying to come from the place that there is not ‘correct’ guideline, people do not have a set ‘destiny’ or ‘purpose’, rather it is individually constructed when you said ‘fulfilling the roles you were destined for’ it just came across as a sweeping generalisation
Motherhood makes sense. It is a biological driver for most humans. I know being a Father brings me a lot of joy. But it's harder to enjoy for Men, because the vast majority of custody is awarded to women. And if we're lucky to have time with our kid it most likely involves a lengthy court case and piles of $$ being spent to enjoy a right automatically granted to women. Marriage makes sense, for women, because it's a no lose situation. They've got an extra paycheck around. if they don't like the deal. They can bounce with kids, child support, possible alimony, and at least half the assets. Men's rights for me is to afford Men the same legal rights. There has been progress. But society is too caught up on outcomes of women, they continue to maintain the outdated laws.
Wow. Who would have thought individuals who put others above themselves are the happiest? It's almost like we are biologically hardwired to live in tribes and help each other.
Weird how that thing people are biologically programmed to do is what gives them the most joy. Dunno why people are downvoting me. It’s biological fact that our brains are programmed to reward us for perpetuating the human species. I’m not saying people have to do that, just that is in our genetics to do so.
In other news... Hitler drank water
Are you telling me that women who choose to prioritise sacrificing themselves to a corporate job so they can consume shallow products are unhappy ? What the hell ? Who wants a loving family ? That’s not the best part of life , consumerism is
No no no, I have it on good authority (tiktokers) that SINKs are the happiest of all people in the entire world. /s