More Childless Men: Women Do Not Want Children With Low-status Men

[Rudiger]

I think looks matter most, then assuming all things equal then of course income would come into play. Personality matters at some point too but you'd have to be a real psycho to get ruled out if you're wealthy and good looking. Not saying it doesn't happen but it just seems like a small percentage.

In some states and big metropolitan areas if you are making $35,000 then you are the absolute lowest class. $35,000 does not go very far in the US and if you graduate from University and can work in a bigger city you should really be looking to start at $50,000+ / yr easily.

In Europe it's very different; every time I travel to Europe I'm amazed at how little people make compared to Americans. There's countries that are exceptions of course, but in general US commands higher salaries.

The UK in particular is baffling how little money they make, I know there's poorer countries like Spain, but I know people in top class law firms that are making like £18k a year. Only because they are young, but what does it go up to? A woman quit last year to have children, she was 32 and on £26k a year.

I mean working as a solicitor on near minimum wage, and hoping to get up to a normal acceptable wage.

 

[BaldyBalderBald]

The UK in particular is baffling how little money they make, I know there's poorer countries like Spain, but I know people in top class law firms that are making like £18k a year. Only because they are young, but what does it go up to? A woman quit last year to have children, she was 32 and on £26k a year.

I mean working as a solicitor on near minimum wage, and hoping to get up to a normal acceptable wage.

Even worse than in France, harsh, only time i've been in UK, life was also pretty expensive, how do they even survive ?

 

[JohnsonDDG]

View attachment 68814

This is just going to get frustrating, I know it. But like I explained, and Exo, these guys aren't losers, they are normal hard working guys who have ambitions and are saving money up.

You got called misandrist because, despite the article pointing towards a completely different view, your feminazi mind twisted it to "all men are losers who can blame women?!" and I have no idea how.

Do you think a general population can suddenly just become a population of losers out of nowhere? That's a bit insane. And also you seem to be struggling to save up for a hair transplant, and you live in a poverty stricken country doing a job that isn't exactly a career, what exactly makes you not low-tier? I'd say most guys at age 30 have enough money for a hair transplant, that wouldn't really be an issue. I mean sh*t I have a 27 year old friend who only got his first actual job a year ago, and at minimum wage he's saved up several thousand already (living with parents but still, he does pay rent, and even if he wasn't I'd say he'd easily have over 10 grand in the next 3 years). And he probably wouldn't even consider himself mid-tier (at the moment anyway).

If you want to call a loser, a loser, fine (but further adds to feminazi thinking as I don't know why you think this is a purposeful exercise other than being able to hate men) but you aren't doing this, you're calling all guys losers, and saying more and more losers are out there which is why women aren't f*****g them.

It's pretty awful really.

I made my point clear in saying if you are jobless, have no equity, and no friends, and have a weigh issue then you are a loser (same applies for women).

We live in a PC society where we aren't supposed to call people losers, but lets just be honest, if you don't meet those basic criteria's you are probably a loser.

My original post isn't aimed at the guys earning 30,000 per year, with a social life, and a healthy body - they are normal, average men and by no means losers in any way.

And these average men - they are the ones who are likely to end up married by 40.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

The UK in particular is baffling how little money they make, I know there's poorer countries like Spain, but I know people in top class law firms that are making like £18k a year. Only because they are young, but what does it go up to? A woman quit last year to have children, she was 32 and on £26k a year.

I mean working as a solicitor on near minimum wage, and hoping to get up to a normal acceptable wage.

You can live cheaply here.

I used to earn 19,000 two year ago in the UK.

My cost of living was 12,000 a year.

I used to spend 2000 a year on travel.

The rest I saved.

 

[Rudiger]

I made my point clear in saying if you are jobless, have no equity, and no friends, and have a weigh issue then you are a loser (same applies for women).

We live in a PC society where we aren't supposed to call people losers, but lets just be honest, if you don't meet those basic criteria's you are probably a loser.

My original post isn't aimed at the guys earning 30,000 per year, with a social life, and a healthy body - they are normal, average men and by no means losers in any way.

And these average men - they are the ones who are likely to end up married by 40.

I knew this would be frustrating.

The article is about how 25% of men are childless by age 45, and then you wrote "who'd f*** a loser anyway?" so that's saying a quarter of men must be losers, do you understand now? And they also mentioned how this number is way more than the 10% who said they don't have children, so they actually did take your type of scenario into account. I mean you could have at least read the underlined part before giving an opinion, which was basically fleeting misandry and white knighting.

 

[Rudiger]

"Loser" is a catch all term that can refer to different characteristics of a person. For example, you can be a 40yo millionaire who is single with no kids and some people will still point at you and call you a loser because you didn't get married and have kids. Same thing if you are broke but have 7 kids by age 30 - a loser.

If you can't hold a conversation and are generally antisocial - loser. If you can't dress appropriately/decently - loser. If you flunked school but were amazing at playing football - loser. If you aced school but sucked at playing football - loser.

The term "Loser" is applied by the person saying it; it doesn't mean the person has lost at life, it just means that the observer has determined that this individual is lacking in skills that they place more importance on. It's totally possible for two people to be having a conversation and thinking the other person is a loser - think an athlete who flunked school and an accountant with no hand/eye coordination.

Which means just because someone calls you a loser doesn't make you a loser. Now if everyone calls you a loser, then you are a f*****g loser, so get your sh*t together.

It's always been a term that somewhat irks me, like a pet peeve, not because I get called one regularly or did as a kid (though everyone gets called a loser at some point because like you say, it's impossible not to be a loser at something, then you are vulnerable to generally be labelled one) but because it's so vague, lazy and un-productive. It really sounds pigheaded actually, I mean if you say someone's life is a mess because they're unemployed and always high, these are specifics, they are defined insults and you are making your observations and reasoning clear. But if someone just turns to you and goes "you're a loser" uhm, what?! What am I supposed to take from this? And the person saying it doesn't sound particularly smart either, even if it's pretty clear why they're saying it, they've really failed to put the point across distinctly.

I probably have said "jeese, what a loser" but only when it's totally obvious as to why, overall though I get a bit pedantic/fussy over what I see as the most useless insult going.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Dude, get your *** to the US and make some real money, holy sh*t I was making more than that working through college at a grocery store when I was 17.

Haha I now 18,000 American dollars per year working in asia.

My cost of living is 8,000 dollars per year.

I now spend 2,000 per year on travel and save 8,000 per year (saving for a masters).

Its all about how much disposable cash you have.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

I knew this would be frustrating.

The article is about how 25% of men are childless by age 45, and then you wrote "who'd f*** a loser anyway?" so that's saying a quarter of men must be losers, do you understand now? And they also mentioned how this number is way more than the 10% who said they don't have children, so they actually did take your type of scenario into account. I mean you could have at least read the underlined part before giving an opinion, which was basically fleeting misandry and white knighting.

Mens who don't have kids aren't losers any way - they are the winners by my book - you know this and you know my stance.

But I maintain the original statement - who would f*** a loser? (I actually know the answer; other losers)

 

[Exodus2011]

Dude, get your *** to the US and make some real money, holy sh*t I was making more than that working through college at a grocery store when I was 17.

Lol half of it goes to education and health insurance here though xD. 'Murica

 

[Rudiger]

Mens who don't have kids aren't losers any way - they are the winners by my book - you know this and you know my stance.

JFC. I guess it was unreasonable to expect you to be able to read my posts considering you couldn't understand the point of a simple thread.

I give up.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

JFC. I guess it was unreasonable to expect you to be able to read my posts considering you couldn't understand the point of a simple thread.

I give up.

Sometimes I read your posts but don't respond to all your points because it would take too long.

I know you like a debate, and I like them too sometimes, but I don't always want to get into a massive long winded discussion on what defines a loser and how women work in the sexual/dating market.

Because lets face it, we'd end up writing for hours.

 

[Rudiger]

Also we'll see if you think you're still a childless "winner" in 10-15 years, as the majority of women are maternal you have a huge stumbling block in finding one of the less than 10% of women who don't want children (and most of these end up changing their mind in their later years anyway). So it's hard enough to find someone compatible, but out of the difficulty of finding a woman you also need to find the 1 in 10 who is happy not having children with you.

If you don't get over that stumbling block then prepare for a life of being ostracised from other people, even social events like weddings etc. will feel uncomfortable as everyone else will be their with their families, and you'll be the weird guy trying to fit in with everyone. Even if you do become super successful out of nowhere, you'll still be a "loser" in many ways, and you'll also find friends who start families will stop having as much time for you, they'll instead be hanging out with their other friends with children and having days out etc. You think uncle Johnson's getting invited to that?

There are plenty of reasons to want children but I didn't even touch on how important it is socially.

 

[Rudiger]

Sometimes I read your posts but don't respond to all your points because it would take too long.

I know you like a debate, and I like them too sometimes, but I don't always want to get into a massive long winded discussion on what defines a loser and how women work in the sexual/dating market.

Because lets face it, we'd end up writing for hours.

The other day you apologised for replying to one single point in a long post, and I replied saying that's absolutely fine, because you focused on the vital point, and nothing is more frustrating that someone evading the most important point.

Here, you did that, my most important point (as I repeated it 3 times) was that in a thread that says a quarter of men aren't having children, you come in and fleetingly write "who'd f*** a loser anyway?" implying the onus is all on the men, it's their fault, women are justified because they don't want to f*** any smelly loser man.

And you replied by saying "men who don't want kids aren't losers anyway" like wtf! Had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

On top of this my last post you were replying to was one paragraph, short and concise, I thought "there's no way he can mis-read this" and I know this is accusatory but when you miss the point so blatantly it seems like it's intentionally evasive.

 

[Rudiger]

Are you in your 30's? If so, you need to start making more money, regardless of low cost of living. If you are in your 20's then it's ok i guess. I'm not judging by the way, it's all good - I grew up poor and worked my way up to a fairly nice gig, but i know what it's like to be living on minimum wage. The rules in the US are different, though. you work too many hours, have too few vacation days, have to pay ridiculous prices for health insurance and cost of living is higher, plus you have to save a lot for your retirement and buying land/property is difficult/expensive. So in the end it probably balances itself out...

I don't know how someone who was proudly (?) earning £19k a year and aware the average salary is £26k, could consider themselves as not low-status.

Cruel but fair I believe. If a hair transplant is financially unobtainable and needs a savings plan, and you're 30, not 22, then sorry, that's not mid-status. Let's get real here.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

I don't know how someone who was proudly (?) earning £19k a year and aware the average salary is £26k, could consider themselves as not low-status.

Cruel but fair I believe. If a hair transplant is financially unobtainable and needs a savings plan, and you're 30, not 22, then sorry, that's not mid-status. Let's get real here.

I'd just finished my degree and earning 19,000 after uni is normal for any age.

I have 10,000 disposable cash each year and confident and fully happy with my lifestyle.

As for mis-reading your posts: I never mis-read them.

Sometimes I just chose to discuss whats most interesting to me.

This isn't a question an answer forum - we can write about whatever interests us.

I will sometimes answer your questions when I feel there could be an interesting discussion to be had.

 

[Rudiger]

This isn't a question an answer forum - we can write about whatever interests us.

Yes but when you consistently choose "the most interesting topic" as the one you hadn't initially made an error of judgement in being wrong about, then that gets suspicious after a while.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Minimum standards for a man:

- at least 6 feet tall;
- Caucasian;
- Not a racist;
- Full head of hair;
- Stylish and well groomed;
- Not vain;
- Athletic and fit;
- Has real hobbies, going to the gym is not a hobby, and doesn't count calories;
- Is affectionate;
- Isn't needy;
- Makes good money, sending our kids to daycare is going to be expensive;
- Doesn't spend the day at the office, has enough time to spend time together;
- Comes from a strong family;
- Is independent;
- Doesn't personally identify as feminist and is not well-versed in feminist theory and history;
- Respects women and doesn't engage in sexist micro-aggressions;
- Has a boner within three seconds whenever the woman wants to have sex;
- Is understanding and gives immediate space with warmth wherever the woman does not want to have sex;
- Didn't vote for Trump;

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

By the way guys some of the points in my list are actually things that I've heard women say.

For example, one woman once told me that she doesn't like it when men say that the gym is a hobby. She said that the gym is not a hobby, and that guys shouldn't be going six days a week. That's fine, she can believe what she wants, but if that's her opinion she should have never gone out with the athletically-built guys that she no doubt went on dates with.

 

[Rudiger]

Minimum standards for a man:

- at least 6 feet tall;
- Caucasian;
- Not a racist;
- Full head of hair;
- Stylish and well groomed;
- Not vain;
- Athletic and fit;
- Has real hobbies, going to the gym is not a hobby, and doesn't count calories;
- Is affectionate;
- Isn't needy;
- Makes good money, sending our kids to daycare is going to be expensive;
- Doesn't spend the day at the office, has enough time to spend time together;
- Comes from a strong family;
- Is independent;
- Doesn't personally identify as feminist and is not well-versed in feminist theory and history;
- Respects women and doesn't engage in sexist micro-aggressions;
- Didn't vote for Trump;

Yes pretty much. Unless you're good looking, then you can f*** up with a bunch of these.

Noting that not being a racist isn't much of a requirement in the UK and Ireland, I dunno about Europe, but as long as it doesn't indicate you're potentially unreasonably aggressive towards other races, you can be casually racist and your partner won't care. I get this as a pretty strong impression when it comes to friendship too, I know some blatantly racist people who sometimes say awful things, but as long as that doesn't translate to spilling over into affecting the real world (eg actually making a racial slur at another race) then nobody really care.

Hmmm and I dunno if gym doesn't count as a real hobby, obviously I'm biased here but even before I started gymming again, I wanted to start going for a few reasons, one of the side-benefits is that it's a somewhat respected and noble thing to do. I was envious of those who would go to the gym regularly and do something difficult on a daily basis, just to better themselves, and I acknowledged that as a somewhat humble thing to do (going to the effort of going to the gym daily and because it's daily, of course you don't mention it all the time).

I'm not like super defensive of the idea of the gym being a weak hobby, but yeah, I'm pretty sure it's generally regarded as more important than a real hobby. Like I think most people generally, women as well, would regard it quite highly as an important hobby, for various reasons really, but I'd like to know what you think further on that.

 

[Rudiger]

By the way guys some of the points in my list are actually things that I've heard women say.

For example, one woman once told me that she doesn't like it when men say that the gym is a hobby. She said that the gym is not a hobby, and that guys shouldn't be going six days a week. That's fine, she can believe what she wants, but if that's her opinion she should have never gone out with the athletically-built guys that she no doubt went on dates with.

Ah I see, well to be fair, that's one person. She was sick of losing out time to guys who spend 2 hours out of their evening for travelling to and from a lengthy gym session.

Nobody wants overkill, I think it's a positive point of someone's personality for most women. Of course this is one of those things that can all rely on facial attraction, for example if he's good looking and she likes him, and he "hits" the gym then "omg he's so disciplined! he has real drive and determination" but if it's a fairly beta guy who she isn't attracted to "lol... he goes to the gym?! over-compensating much? he's not even big or anything" (even if he's in very good shape, if he's not Tom Hardy muscular which takes years, then it's just a try-hard wannabe).

That's a bit of an extreme example but I don't doubt it happens sometimes, I've heard similar from women.