Look, no one gets out of (or into, as the case may be here) bed without an agenda.

Men and women want "relationships" as a matter of nature or there wouldn't be people left to worry about such things. How we manage setting those up and the social governance around the details and eventualities takes up a huge portion of our culture.

I'm one of the worst Roman Catholics going, though I strive to be a closer follower of Christ every day, so without meaning to imply any appeal to authority of Rome, go read Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI. He walked through the societal implication of sex (and therefore male/female relationships) reliably separated from the prospect of a family. It was prescient.

Men will seek cheap gratification and women will bid for their attention with the hope of getting more from the man than he intends to offer. It leads to dissatisfaction from both parties.

Even religious women are being raised in a world where counting on a man to support you and the family you might want to raise together is thought of as literally gambling with your life. So they try to catch the eye of the guys that are willing and capable of supporting them while trying to be more appealing than every THOT with an instagram account. Some succeed, but middling attractive/charming girls/women and middling successful/ambitions boys/men don't see how they fit in at all.

Without another guiding moral principle, guys with many options in women don't hold out and women with many options in men do. As a strictly economic prospect, that leads to a bunch of lonely people.

titan said:

---

That sounds like it may fit. So I guess Chad is the new word for jack-ss `roving stud' or just rake?

---

or alpha-male, but you got the gist of it.

hunter2012 said:

---

titan said:

---

That sounds like it may fit. So I guess Chad is the new word for jack-ss `roving stud' or just rake?

---

or alpha-male, but you got the gist of it.

---

But it seems pejorative, whereas alphas are the ones that get things done, build nations, etc. At leas tin my day, roving stud had a negative in that it implied a user--- more like Bill Cllnton, rather than Roger Staubach for example.

titan said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

titan said:

---

That sounds like it may fit. So I guess Chad is the new word for jack-ss `roving stud' or just rake?

---

or alpha-male, but you got the gist of it.

---

But it seems pejorative, whereas alphas are the ones that get things done, build nations, etc. At leas tin my day, roving stud had a negative in that it implied a user--- more like Bill Cllnton, rather than Roger Staubach for example.

---

In today's political lens it's all viewed negatively as "toxic masculinity"

YouBet said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Look, no one gets out of (or into, as the case may be here) bed without an agenda.

Men and women want "relationships" as a matter of nature or there wouldn't be people left to worry about such things. How we manage setting those up and the social governance around the details and eventualities takes up a huge portion of our culture.

I'm one of the worst Roman Catholics going, though I strive to be a closer follower of Christ every day, so without meaning to imply any appeal to authority of Rome, go read Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI. He walked through the societal implication of sex (and therefore male/female relationships) reliably separated from the prospect of a family. It was prescient.

Men will seek cheap gratification and women will bid for their attention with the hope of getting more from them than they intend to offer. It leads to dissatisfaction from both parties.

Even religious women are being raised in a world where counting on a man to support you and the family you might want to raise together is thought of as literally gambling with your life. So they try to catch the eye of the guys that are willing and capable of supporting them while trying to be more appealing than every THOT with an instagram account. Some succeed, but middling attractive/charming girls/women and middling successful/ambitions boys/men don't see how they fit in at all.

Without another guiding moral principle, guys with many options in women don't hold out and women with many options in men do. As a strictly economic prospect, that leads to a bunch of lonely people.

---

Thot: definition, a woman considered to be sexually provocative or promiscuous.

Hey Gen X and Boomers: I'm here for your millennial, red pill definition needs. You're welcome!

---

I'm actually gen X myself, but that particular phrase seemed particularly appropriate given the context. It's too late for us old farts to use anyway.

PearlJammin said:

---

These conversations are fascinating. I'm happily married for 20 years and we're dealing with teenagers now, both male and female. I wonder if I need to have these conversations with them. You teach your kids about the birds and the bees, the purpose of intercourse, but the feminism conversation is entirely different, yet seemingly necessary?

I'm not judging anyone here---at all. I'm no super Holy Roller but I attend Mass every Sunday. Not a single person on this thread has proposed the thought that marriage is intended to be a 3-way relationship. God, Husband, and Wife. I know there are unbelievers that are happily married. But anecdotally, the vast majority of my practicing catholic aggie friends are all happily married with a bunch of kids. Their wives are centered and very happy. Husbands are working/living for a purpose to support their family and to try to get them to heaven. I see the fruits of a God-centered marriage. Perhaps unhappy singles should look into charitable religious-organizations. After all, you won't find Kim Kardashian there!

---

In my defense, I did tell everyone to go read a Papal encyclical.

Not that it will offset my voluminous posting history saved in the great server in the sky, but I do try on occasion.

Quote:

---

After all, you won't find Kim Kardashian there!

---

In her defense, she of all such celebrity examples like that, you just might.

Remain very impressed with how she went in person before President Trump to plead for a woman's sentence to be commuted. In that one specific action, she accomplished more than the entire NFL Kapernick kneeling brigade. Because she named a specific, asked for action about a specific, and got it done.

They blather only in generalities.

Married 18 years to a treasure of a bride and am so thankful that the dating scene is nothing but an unpleasant memory. It sucks.

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying you were whining about women, I was saying incels do that. The "Chad and Tyrone bang her in every orifice and then treat her like shiiiit" comment is very close to what incels say, though. It is verbatim what 'nice guys' say when they get rejected by a woman, they claim their boyfriend is treating them like crap. They've so bought into the damsel in distress scenario, they can't see themselves as anything but the hero, and if the damsel isn't in distress, they create the narrative in their mind. It's sick.

Just remember this.......if you believe in science.

Quote:

---

Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out.

---

The institution of marriage was the bedrock of our society. Men worked to provide for their families. Women raised their children. The problem is that marriage is not always congruent with our physical desires. Society eventually breaks down as more men would rather play the field than get married, and spend more money and effort in chasing different women than raising a family with a spouse. Likewise, women become dissatisfied with husbands per their genetic nature, leading to cheating and divorce. When half of all marriages end in divorce, it can no longer be called a successful foundation for a functioning society.

Sounds like someone read Three to Get Married by Ven. Fulton Sheen

THOT: acronym, That Hoe Over There. Means what you think it does. It is a zoomer term.

AWALT: All Women Are Like That

The belief that there is no special unicorn out there, all women are the same, and are going to put you through the ringer. People who struggle swallowing the red pill would say, "Yeah, but I know this one chick who is different...." believing they know the exception that disproves all red pill theory. A simple response is AWALT. Valhalla can probably go more in depth on this, it's been a while since I've read any red pill theory. The incel invasion caused me to leave the forums.

"Chad" - Chad Thundercokk, the ultimate alpha male, the goal all men aspire to be. All men want to be him, all women want to screw him.

Incels actually helped popularize this character, whining that Chad was stealing all the Bettys out there. (I will not explain Betty to you, if you don't know who that is, go watch Encino Man again.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Just remember this.......if you believe in science.

Quote:

---

Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out.

---

The institution of marriage was the bedrock of our society. Men worked to provide for their families. Women raised their children. The problem is that marriage is not always congruent with our physical desires. Society eventually breaks down as more men would rather play the field than get married, and spend more money and effort in chasing different women than raising a family with a spouse. Likewise, women become dissatisfied with husbands per their genetic nature, leading to cheating and divorce. When half of all marriages end in divorce, it can no longer be called a successful foundation for a functioning society.

---

Full wisdom there. Nothing to add save this: the blunt truth of that, just like where and what time of history you were born into, is one of the reasons that makes a complete shipwreck of the quaint modern idea that fairness or justice has ever existed. Just some systems offer more opportunity to succeed than others.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Sounds like someone read Three to Get Married by Ven. Fulton Sheen

---

Never read it, but my wife and I sponsor engaged couples. So we often speak about submitting to a religious authority, outside of yourself, is healthy to your marriage.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Just remember this.......if you believe in science.

Quote:

---

Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out.

---

The institution of marriage was the bedrock of our society. Men worked to provide for their families. Women raised their children. The problem is that marriage is not always congruent with our physical desires. Society eventually breaks down as more men would rather play the field than get married, and spend more money and effort in chasing different women than raising a family with a spouse. Likewise, women become dissatisfied with husbands per their genetic nature, leading to cheating and divorce. When half of all marriages end in divorce, it can no longer be called a successful foundation for a functioning society.

---

it seems like marriage being the bedrock of society peaked after ww2 and has been on a steady decline since the increased technological interventions in our lives

PearlJammin said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Sounds like someone read Three to Get Married by Ven. Fulton Sheen

---

Never read it, but my wife and I sponsor engaged couples. So we often speak about submitting to a religious authority, outside of yourself, is healthy to your marriage.

---

Highly recommend. Good on y'all for that wonderful work. And you're exactly right. SVBMIT TO THE CHVRCH AND THE ROMAN PONTIFF

hunter2012 said:

---

MGTOW- Men Going Their Own Way- It's an internet movement advocating for men to focus on themselves and their hobbies and ignoring the modern dating game and pursuing women in general. It's largely meant to be a counter-move to the modern feminist waves. A lot of the motivation behind it are the worst cases of divorce and breakups where the man lost everything in the split.

---

Ha- I just googled this phrase as I had never heard it before.

Just on the first page are the words toxic, misogynistic, anti-feminist, male-separatist describing it.

And then someone literally compares it to the Taliban. Not joking.

So much for equality when men decide they want to match the feminist movement!

StoneCold99 said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

MGTOW- Men Going Their Own Way- It's an internet movement advocating for men to focus on themselves and their hobbies and ignoring the modern dating game and pursuing women in general. It's largely meant to be a counter-move to the modern feminist waves. A lot of the motivation behind it are the worst cases of divorce and breakups where the man lost everything in the split.

---

Ha- I just googled this phrase as I had never heard it before.

Just on the first page are the words toxic, misogynistic, anti-feminist, male-separatist describing it.

And then someone literally compares it to the Taliban. Not joking.

So much for equality when men decide they want to match the feminist movement!

---

Common among all left-wing political points is that it is hateful to not toe the line and retouch every time it drifts further left.

Stop calling them liberals.

whytho987654 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Just remember this.......if you believe in science.

Quote:

---

Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out.

---

The institution of marriage was the bedrock of our society. Men worked to provide for their families. Women raised their children. The problem is that marriage is not always congruent with our physical desires. Society eventually breaks down as more men would rather play the field than get married, and spend more money and effort in chasing different women than raising a family with a spouse. Likewise, women become dissatisfied with husbands per their genetic nature, leading to cheating and divorce. When half of all marriages end in divorce, it can no longer be called a successful foundation for a functioning society.

---

it seems like marriage being the bedrock of society peaked after ww2 and has been on a steady decline since the increased technological interventions in our lives

---

chimpanzee alluded to the actual likely demarcation. Not so much end of WW II as advent of the pill. That is what Humane Vitae was addressing.

The worst part about feminism is that women think they have to act more masculine/manly, and ignore their feminine qualities. I cant tell you how many women I come across that purposely have a more manly voice and do things like: burp, curse, drink to excess etc. Look at Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos girl), she purposely makes her voice deeper.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

PearlJammin said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Sounds like someone read Three to Get Married by Ven. Fulton Sheen

---

Never read it, but my wife and I sponsor engaged couples. So we often speak about submitting to a religious authority, outside of yourself, is healthy to your marriage.

---

Highly recommend. Good on y'all for that wonderful work. And you're exactly right. SVBMIT TO THE CHVRCH AND THE ROMAN PONTIFF

---

I encourage all happily-married practicing Catholics to support this ministry. It's been awesome for my own marriage and we've made a ton of lasting friendships.

Well we just hit 5 years a couple weeks ago. I feel like I'd be a little under qualified.

ea1060 said:

---

Valhalla said:

---

ea1060 said:

---

Valhalla said:

---

Pookers said:

---

bayareaag17 said:

---

Clob94 said:

---

bayareaag17 said:

---

Yeah I'm a young guy in the dating scene. Most of these women my age bring absolutely nothing to the table and have the highest expectations. It's pretty strange out there. While it's never been easier to score a date, it's probably never been harder to find a girl worth keeping around. I'm sure there's a ton of men that are just as bad to be honest. Everyone is just consumed with Instagram and pretending to be rich. Personality is extremely lacking in my age group. For reference I'm 25 years old. I have some date stories that would make this board want to throw up with how entitled some of these women are lol.

I know a decent amount of guys who have checked out of dating and plan on trying to get a mid 20's girl when they're in their 30's.

---

Go on dude. Spill it. I'm in my 40s and I'll go first with the stupid truck.

Ready?


I'm 22 in college and take a girl on a date. UT coed. She orders a Ceasars salad---- andvwithout batting a f***ing eyelash, says "with ranch dressing....." ---- straight f***ing face when she says it.

---

Haha ok ok. Here's a date I went on about a month or so ago. Really good looking blonde girl, honestly probably a bit out of my league (although I've been told I'm a pretty good looking guy, sorry for the brag lol.) I take her to a pretty nice seafood spot and we get to talking. It starts off alright but then she starts going on a tangent about how she never wants to work and wants to be like a Kardashian. That was the first red flag. She then spent about 10 minutes talking about how she is starving herself so she can get her bikini body ready for summer. After that she starts saying how she doesn't like that I drive a 2014 Honda Civic because that's a "poor person car." I bought that car on my own and paid it off, I could get a new car if I wanted to but that would be a huge waste of money. Keep in mind this girl drives like a 2007 Kia, has no job and was fully expecting me to pay for our $80/plate dinner. We keep talking and she brings up her Instagram (talk about a boring and vain topic) and I mention that I don't have an Instagram or any social media. She says "oh well you must be a loser then." I asked why that's the case and she said "well the only people who don't have Instagram are the people who can't get any followers." I laughed and said that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. After that she starts talking about how she never gets anywhere with men and how she hates them because they're all just awful. I was kind of at the end of my rope at this point and told her that it's probably not the men that are awful, it's her and her personality. After I said that I flagged down the waitress, told her to split the bill down the middle, paid my half and walked out of the restaurant.

I feel bad for whatever poor sap ends up with her because she's good looking and they don't have the nuts to say enough is enough. She was clearly just some gold digger who had no idea she was on a date with a guy who is doing pretty damn well for a 25 year old but doesn't flaunt it because I feel 0 need to keep up with the Jones'.

---

That's so damn pathetic its funny.

Best first dates are coffee or something else cheap. Spending $80 on a nice meal is usually a bad idea. You're better off hitting the liquor store and getting some decent bourbon and a cigar and chilling out alone vs. an expensive first date that ends nowhere. There's women on these apps that just go on dates to score some good food.

---

4chan /pol/ Tinder disaster threads are funny as hell. An enormous amount of close 30s to 40s desperate women who are all post wall, have the thousand cock stare, say they want kids, and have absolutely nothing to offer any man at all.

It's funny but also sad because these women bought into the feminism lie hook, line, and sinker that they would be happier in a career than raising kids in a family with a husband. They are well on their way to being spinsters and crazy cat ladies.

---

The funny thing is women these days have absolutely no idea how much working a typical corporate 9-5 job sucks. They think their adult lives will be like Carrie from sex and the city. Making tons of money, brunch with the girls, dating rich men etc. What they don't realize is they'll likely end up in some average $50k job with a crappy boss, tight deadlines, working the occasional nights, bills, debt etc.

It's why there's so many bitter/jaded single women in their 30's these days. Their life and career isn't at all what they expected it to be like. By then it's too late to realize that feminism failed them and having a career isn't all it's cracked up to be.

---

They never realized that men taking the breadwinner role was a sacrifice because work blows no matter how much you may enjoy your job and no one actually wants to have to work for a living. Thanks to media and social media they thought they would be working $250k jobs by age 30 when in reality they are in a deadend administrative position with a $50k/yr salary at most.

Feminism then told them they could have it all yet never told them men never had it all. As a breadwinner you sacrifice time with family and friends to make money. Men have a much easier time accepting that reality than women do.

---

100% agree. The truth is for most people, work sucks. Working blows. Working an office job can be soul crushing. No one wants to actually work, we do it because we have no other choice. We have to support ourselves and our family. I tell this to young women all the time who talk about finding their dream job and "doing what they love." Of course they dont listen because most young women havent worked a day in their life before they graduate college lol. All of that doing what you love is bs for the majority of people.

---

I felt this way until I owned my own business. Now I enjoy going to work and providing for my family. I am married to someone 15 years younger than me and we have been married almost 11 years. She stays home with our two daughters.

This is the way the world and family is designed to work.

You have to take risk to get there though. Good luck!

titan said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Just remember this.......if you believe in science.

Quote:

---

Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out.

---

The institution of marriage was the bedrock of our society. Men worked to provide for their families. Women raised their children. The problem is that marriage is not always congruent with our physical desires. Society eventually breaks down as more men would rather play the field than get married, and spend more money and effort in chasing different women than raising a family with a spouse. Likewise, women become dissatisfied with husbands per their genetic nature, leading to cheating and divorce. When half of all marriages end in divorce, it can no longer be called a successful foundation for a functioning society.

---

it seems like marriage being the bedrock of society peaked after ww2 and has been on a steady decline since the increased technological interventions in our lives

---

chimpanzee alluded to the actual likely demarcation. Not so much end of WW II as advent of the pill. That is what Humane Vitae was addressing.

---

Exactly, the cost/benefit equation of THE fundamental human interaction was altered. Without another morality guiding that practice, the whole world's risk/reward equation with romantic relationships set off into uncharted territory.

Even if a woman doesn't take the pill, she is competing with women who do for the attention of men.

In days gone by men might have said for religious/moral reasons, "stay away from me, you're clearly a borderline *****". Women would say, "stay away from me, you're poor/unambitious" in agreement with both moral and economic incentives. Only one side of that equation has changed because stigma of being a promiscuous man is gone while the cost of being a promiscuous woman has dropped.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

The Wall- is the moment where a single woman usually in her 30s/40s can't lean on looks anymore to attract men towards establishing a long term relationship. It's largely a phenomenon with the millennial professional women that spent their 20s and 30s sorely focused on a career and having fun in the dating scene(hookups and casual dating relationships). When they reach their 30/40s they can't find men to date them because men their age are largely dating women younger than them. Sadly this is usually the point where many of these women are ready to settle down and have a family, but for many of them it's already too late. Anecdotes above describe how poor attitudes and worldviews these women have.

Probably the best way to look at it is through the lens of behavioral economics. Women are more selective for dating and have comparative advantage at a younger age until mid to late 30s. At that point Men have the advantage for selecting for long term relationships. Quite frankly I believe it's because a man can have kids at any point in his life, but for women it is limited window.

---

I've never heard this term before but I see it in action all the time. Career focused, driven, got that BigLaw job, making money, ascending. Then the partner feeding her work laterals and she can't follow. Next thing you know, she's getting the "up or out and for you, its out" speech from the firm management committee. And all of a sudden, she's celebrating her 38th birthday alone with a glass of grocery store chardonnay while she stares blankly at her newly printed business cards for her job at "I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm!"

---

replace law firm with a job as a wedge for a large corporation making 50/60k

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

The Wall- is the moment where a single woman usually in her 30s/40s can't lean on looks anymore to attract men towards establishing a long term relationship. It's largely a phenomenon with the millennial professional women that spent their 20s and 30s sorely focused on a career and having fun in the dating scene(hookups and casual dating relationships). When they reach their 30/40s they can't find men to date them because men their age are largely dating women younger than them. Sadly this is usually the point where many of these women are ready to settle down and have a family, but for many of them it's already too late. Anecdotes above describe how poor attitudes and worldviews these women have.

Probably the best way to look at it is through the lens of behavioral economics. Women are more selective for dating and have comparative advantage at a younger age until mid to late 30s. At that point Men have the advantage for selecting for long term relationships. Quite frankly I believe it's because a man can have kids at any point in his life, but for women it is limited window.

---

I've never heard this term before but I see it in action all the time. Career focused, driven, got that BigLaw job, making money, ascending. Then the partner feeding her work laterals and she can't follow. Next thing you know, she's getting the "up or out and for you, its out" speech from the firm management committee. And all of a sudden, she's celebrating her 38th birthday alone with a glass of grocery store chardonnay while she stares blankly at her newly printed business cards for her job at "I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm!"

---

It's a good case study for the phenomenon.

The push for a "meaningful career" leads to working your ass off for somebody else, if you want to compromise that to "have it all" don't be surprised if someone else doesn't and is able to make the committee more money.

The only way to beat that is with extraordinary talent, luck, or pictures from the time that office managing partner was making out with the intern after his wife left him fed up with him never being at home.

Quote:

---

The only way to beat that is with extraordinary talent, luck, or pictures from the time that office managing partner was making out with the intern after his wife left him fed up with him never being at home.

---

Oddly specific...