TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Where Have All the Good Men Gone?: Gender Differences in Marriageability

dungone

March 26, 2017
43 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/10/08/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone-gender-differences-in-marriageability/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Where Have All the Good Men Gone?: Gender Differences in Marriageability
Author

dungone

Upvotes 43
Comments 29
Date March 26, 2017 4:55 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/61mjyz/where_have_all_the_good_men_gone_gender/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone-gender.927822
https://theredarchive.com/post/927822
Top posts by dungone

Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech

223 upvotes
August 8, 2017
/r/MensRights

LA to use license plate readers to shame men who drive down a street known for prostitution.

144 upvotes
December 2, 2015
/r/MensRights

This is what gamers really look like

77 upvotes
January 27, 2015
/r/MensRights

Judges Reject Orange County's Claim That Social Workers Didn't Know Lying In Court Was Wrong

74 upvotes
May 29, 2017
/r/MensRights

Facebook's Hate Speech Rules Make 'White Men' a Protected Group

69 upvotes
June 29, 2017
/r/MensRights

Feminist woman rigs the Democratic primaries? Blame it on a man

64 upvotes
November 3, 2017
/r/MensRights

Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses a decade after going to war

45 upvotes
October 22, 2016
/r/MensRights

Darwin accused of chauvinism for questioning marriage and suggesting evolutionary differences between men and women.

37 upvotes
September 20, 2013
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The article, once again, makes some great points about digging into the statistics ( if nothing else ). However, I still feel it's missing something in it's analyst.

How many "marriageable" men are out there that want absolutely nothing to do with marriage, after having watched their family members go through it? Sure, a lot of these dumbasses will give up their principles because societal pressures and "love", but I find there's a greater degree of resistance to marriage today than there was even 5 years ago. Most men I talk to ( and I purposefully keep my opinions to myself ) express a higher degree of awareness of the dangers of marriage to men.

To be fair, that's not a subject matter the article was talking about. Still, I find it heartening that more men today are waking up to the dangers they subject themselves to via marriage.

[–]William__F0ster 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

On all of our measures of marriageability, the ratio favors single women. Only comparisons of employed single men to all single women result in a marriage market skewed in favor of men [ ... ] if we are worried about the fate of marriage in America, we should not focus exclusively on the economic prospects of men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I know, I read it. Like I said, I appreciate the digging into the data, if only to highlight what the statements made really mean.

[–]William__F0ster 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know, I read it.

Yes, but others may not have - I thought it would be handy as a TL;DR following your point.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, gotcha.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I hate how this "unemployed men are worthless" mentality is seen as healthy or sensible.

[+]RunsInJeans points 9 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

An unemployed man is comparable to an ugly woman. Nobody wants to fuck her either. Blame evolution.

[–]zxcfdfdgnfdg 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

An unemployed man is comparable to an ugly woman. Nobody wants to fuck her either. Blame evolution.

So what you’re really saying is we need to revert feminism for the health and economic security of men, women, and society at large. Because if the “evolution” cop out is correct, and women will only date men who are employed and that’s “evolution” and an important guiding principle, then women and men are not equal and this must be addressed as it appeared to have been throughout history.

The funny thing about all of this is that you don’t think about what you’re endorsing and what it really means. Either evolve to new requirements or evolve back to a prior state where the requirements can be fulfilled. This is not sustainable.

[+]RunsInJeans points 9 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm not endorsing anything, just stating facts. This "cop-out" excuse of mine has been well studied in academia from departments that actually produce scientific understanding. Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology etc.

Over the ages, women who have chosen poor providers have not had as many off-spring that survived to reproductive maturity. Men who have chosen unattractive mates have not had as many healthy children survive to sexual maturity. The evolutionary pressures that have lead all life to adapt/evolve doesn't give a fuck about your feelings or mine.

[–]zxcfdfdgnfdg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

But you're conflating a provider with someone who they want to fuck. That's willfully naive and simplifying a very complex equation. We're seeing a rise in single mothers.

The evolutionary pressures that have lead all life to adapt/evolve doesn't give a fuck about your feelings or mine.

But that has little to do with the design of social systems. Appealing to nature is a cop out. We clubbed each other's heads when we got angry and raped each other. That led to much life. You're simplifying a very complex set of ideas.

Nobody wants to fuck her either. This "cop-out" excuse of mine has been well studied in academia from departments that actually produce scientific understanding. Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology etc.

Really? What were the metrics? That one study about familial wealth, shoulder width, and height?

[+]RunsInJeans points 9 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry if this well understood phenomenon has cause you to become distressed. Bad evolution, bad!

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I would like to see you actually try to answer his question instead of making fun of strawmen. I agree with him that you are resorting to cop-outs. I imagine this world where 100% of all children born to ugly mothers or unemployed fathers die. Except of course that's not how any of it works. Remaining single and not having kids because she's ugly and you're jobless is also an "evolutionary" dead end. Your kids' survival rate will be lower for sure, but it does not mean you don't get married and don't have kids if your only goal in life is for an evolutionary "win". It also does not mean you become a single mother and fuck over your kids' chances even more. These are not evolutionarily "optimal" strategies, but those are the societal problems we are actually fsced witb.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]dungone -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Where did I say 100% anything... even successful adaptions aren't 100%

Your argument is inherently contingent on a 100% death rate for offspring because you are attempting to rationalize why a woman would choose to not even reproduce rather than be with an unemployed man.

( look up "satisficing")

Look up "ecological fallacy". You might also want to refresh your memory on confusing cause and effect.

Your line of reasoning is that women who are attracted to unemployed men and have children with them have worse outcomes. True, but guess what? They're still attracted to them and have children with them. That's how you get the "worse outcomes" to begin with (cause and effect comes in to play here).

And by and large, everything else being equal, it's actually the women who are attracted to and stand by their men, rich or poor, who have far better outcomes. The women who are entering into an evolutionary dead end for them and their children are the hordes of spinsters and single mothers in our society today. This is where you have to be very careful with relative rates and in deciding what is an optimal strategy. And it's where you have to be careful with applying averages for the group, based on average historical performance, to individuals within the group making decisions based individual circumstances.

Do you think all of this stems from social conditioning?

No, I think it stems from you trying to knock down strawmen and offer red herrings in their place.

only people I've met that offer resistance to Evolutionary Psychology theories are feminists

Tu quoque. Just because feminists are wrong does not mean that what you read on redpiller/PUA/MGTOW forums is right.

As a man, does this offend me? No, it just is what it is.

I'm pretty sure it has affected you to the core if you actually identify as a MGTOW.

But actually, you should just listen carefully to the original argument that you refuse to address. It's really simple.

Attraction is relative. That's it. Trying to relate it in a way you can appreciate: why do you think there is a mail-order bride phenomenon? Or, why do you think that professionally successful women limit themselves to marrying men who are even more successful, even if that cripples their ability to mate and have children? Or, very broadly, why is there even such a thing as single-motherhood? Do you see the paradox?

Women, using a heuristic that has evolved to help them find a higher quality mate, can actually go for the lowest and most undesirable men in an otherwise more successful group. Or, they can completely fuck themselves over. Single-motherhood is responsible for an alarming portion of violence, suicide, imprisonment, and unemployment among children.

Do you see the irony? This is what the other comment was pointing out. That if women are only attracted to relatively wealthier men, and there are not enough wealthier men to satisfy their demand, and if this results in maladaptive outcomes (rich women not having children, single-mothers dropping out of the middle-class into poverty, etc), then you can make an obvious conclusion. You can, quite simply, abandon the feminist social engineering projects that have led to this situation in the first place. Stop demanding 50% female board members and CEO's. Stop setting women up with a massive social welfare programs while poor men get to go homeless or end up in jail.

[–]ThatNinaGAL 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's an odd conclusion. Why would you assume that it's a "requirement" for unemployed men to be considered marriageable? They never have been before. That might be something that you want, but it's clearly not required for the continuation of society.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you're missing the point. It's not that women need men to be rich to find them attractive. They only need them to be richer than they are. This sign of fitness tends to make long term relationships work and children have good outcomes as a result. The problem is that when you havd a woman money for no good reason, she suddenly views the same exact man who was fit before as unfit now. The evolutionary outcome hasn't changed, but the heuristics that we have evolved to use no longer work. Remember, the contect of evolution is that women had nothing and were going to die if they did not find a man with more.

And then there is our modern society. We are so rich that we can afford to give women opportunities that men don't get. The government will pay for their lives while men go homeless or to jail. Alarms go off when women fail to achieve leadership roles within high-paying professions. The UN will hand out emergency relief rations to women only, while men stand by and starve to death. We focus on birth control and reproductive rights for women only, so that women can advance economically while men have to sink their resources into children the moment that a woman decides for them to. There are many ways of looking at the values of our society with an understanding that the artificial nature of feminist ideology is actually leading to worse outcomes for the poor.

[–]srtor 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same society makes a jobless single mother with child, a 'darling'. It is all social paradigm, nothing to do with evolution.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree.

If unemployed men are worthless, the women without children are equally worthless. And you can just hear the feminists screech over that one. Biology is not destiny they will say; until it's men who are viewed as work-slaves and nothing more.

[–]SodaPalooza 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's nice that feminists are working on this issue since feminism is just about gender equality!

[–]MagicTampon 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

C:WoV>t9;-EIA1H@CW$FK-6!99!uzGi,:,6P9imPeFpcX.+0pBz-VuICH7TMy7#qG,v!8RZ]fg78r$~AIfs%z1E[O:tSTcy6Q[o2OXnph5:4f:eD+yA!T)7tbL]fQHOf4

QM7NS:p!1:DkBGSnM%rtI1X~AS.heWH8s#Jf0],1O:cqge2VTWFgt]wC*#o%+aN4e

[–]dungone 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think her name was Hanna Rosin.

[–]omegaphallic 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Marriagable is a stupid idea, do they think people over 34 are banned from marriage or the unemployed?

"78% of women in the Pew study said they are looking for a spouse with a stable job, compared to just 46% of men. "

That is actually alot higher a percentage for men who won't marry an unemployed woman, nearly half, its starting to sound like women are about to reap what they've sown if that trend continues.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It makes sense.

If I'm out all day working, and there are no kids in the equation yet (or ever) then I would like her working as well else it feels like I'm working to take care of a womanchild.

If there is a kid in the equation, I would like my spouse to work then too. She should work from home of course to spend time with the child, but... It doesn't take all day to wash dishes, do laundry and do other household tasks. (this is due to machines of course) Also, life is expensive. It would be better to have her work at SOMETHING than just sit there.

That might be why around 46% of the men want a partner with a stable job.

[–]omegaphallic 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

True, but things will change as AI improves, full employment will become impossible.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I completely agree. But that's for both men and women. Both will be "unemployed"

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't get married. It's enabling your own abuse.

Instead what we need is 50% custody of our children by default.

In the olden days a man who got a woman pregnant "did the right thing" and married the woman. Did the whole family thing. A relic from the past is that the mother is seen as the primary caregiver. Marriage is one way to actually automatically have custody over your children without taking it to the courts. Sad. Needs to change.

Marriage today is dangerous. The fact is they dissolve most of the time with the divorce being an economic hazard that makes the end result for a father be grim. From custody, a house and shared assets to no custody, payments and possibly inability to own an apartment. Instead rent.

It's way better to prepare and set out for what is the inevitable future from the get-go rather than the detour of marriage and divorce: separate living arrangements. However not taking the detour should enable the father to own his own house or apartment. It should enable the father to take to court the case for 50% custody from the start. It should enable the father to actually spend most of his time and resources on taking care of his children rather than being encumbered by the legal system in various ways.

[–]Meyright 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A relic from the past is that the mother is seen as the primary caregiver.

Thats not even true. In the past men got the custody of the kids, probably because they were the only ones who could provide for them with their job.

It even makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Men "paid" women for their fertility to gift them offspring to continue their heritage.

Nowadays women get the financial provision and the kids. Its lose-lose for a man to get married.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people will argue for the Pew approach on the grounds that men are still expected to be breadwinners: 78% of women in the Pew study said they are looking for a spouse with a stable job, compared to just 46% of men. But women can be “unmarriageable” too. Many men may be reluctant to marry women who have already had a child with another man, for example. Yet when we look at the ratio of men to marriageable women defined as women with no children in their household, once again it is young single women, not men, that are in short supply.

is this a problem?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter