Feminism Is Leaving A Wake Of Unhappy, Unmarried, And Childless Women In Its Path

Feminists claim to promote the advancement of women and gender equality, largely via the promotion of so-called sexual liberation, but their movement is leaving a wake of unhappy, unmarried, and childless women in its path, a real problem feminists seemingly refuse to entirely address.

According to a recent study from Yale University researchers, liberated, college educated women are freezing their eggs because they can’t find a man to marry and have children with before their natural childbearing years expire. In the U.K., for instance, one in five women is childless when their natural reproductive years expires, as opposed to one in ten women a mere generation prior.

So what’s to blame for this onslaught of college-educated yet terribly empty women?

  • Drunk_by_Noon

    A quick show of hands.
    Out of all the men here, who’s dream was it to ever marry (or even become involved with) a career woman?
    Okay, maybe I should lower the bar a little.
    Out of all the guys here, who had as a ‘selection criteria’ (for who you would, or wouldn’t go out with), on what kind of job a girl had, or even if she has any job at the time you first asked her out?
    Yeah. Me neither.
    A ‘career woman’ is the LAST thing any sane and secure man wants.
    The only thing worse would be if you were 700 pound and utterly butt ugly.

    • Exile1981

      Back in my college days I did turn down a date with a women in the
      business department. But all the people I knew in that department always
      talked about themselves and how great they were. I knew then I didn’t
      want someone that nutty.

      • WalterBannon

        I have only ever turned down dates on the basis of looks, and even then standards could get loose. Second dates, different story.

        • Exile1981

          If you knew it would go no where and she was as exciting to talk to as a lamp shade you”d still go on a date with her?

    • WalterBannon

      My criteria always went like this:

      1. Attractive. Bottom line. I am a guy. I want chemistry. Chemistry means I think she is hot and I “want” her.

      2. Intelligence. I don’t want to have stupid kids. Bottom line, you get married for both the companionship, the sex, and having kids. But you can get companionship from friends and you can hook up with no commitments today. So that leaves kids. If you are not going to have kids why get married and loose your freedom?

      3. Nice. I want her to like me for me, humor me when I tell bad jokes, smile when she sees me, not be a gold digger and not be a bitch. Unfortunately I am very bad at assessing these things accurately and women are very good at hiding them.

      Having a career is not really on the list. Only the above. If she has a nice career that is fine, as it is some insurance that I might not get stuck with alimony but beyond that, don’t need her money, don’t want it.

      Also, she does not need to have the same interests and hobbies as me, but some commonality is needed. For example, if she is a dedicated SJW I am pretty sure that she does not meet my second criteria (intelligence) and her beliefs will be a constant point of strife.

      • Drunk_by_Noon

        Good looking, not fat, pleasant personality (a warped sense of humor is a major plus), and not stupid.

        • WalterBannon

          Agreed. also I consider not fat by default as being part of the chemistry question, since I do not find fat attractive. I put some effort into staying in shape and she should too. She does not need to be super model thin but fat is out of the question.

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            Yep, not fat.
            You absolutely don’t have to be skinny or athletic, and we will even tolerate overweight, but you can’t be fat.
            Too many men are cowed and won’t admit that openly, but it is the single worst thing a woman can do to make herself unattractive.
            Don’t blame us ladies, you are fighting biological hardwiring on that one.

          • WalterBannon

            you are right, we are biologically programmed and there is no reason to fight nature, nature has millions of years of evolution behind it to prove it valid, whereas Marxist virtue signalling has nothing behind it but failure

            fat is not healthy. We are strongly attracted by physical indicators of reproductive health. And smart can be explained as a desirable survival trait.

            Nice is the gravy. No one wants a miserable life and living with a gold digger or a shrew is miserable.

            Women also have their own biologically programmed criteria. People who ignore their nature are doomed to be unhappy with their mating choices.

          • Justin St.Denis

            I’ve always found that it’s all about “shape”. And that requires a smaller waist. Boobs, bum, brunette, a small waist, a pretty face and long legs – my recipe for hot. Smarts are great and a sense of humour absolutely essential. A career? Hmmmm…..not really.

          • Exile1981

            When I got married a friend said that he would never settle for a women without a career. Now he’s divorced and i’m still happily married.

        • Exile1981

          In highschool a friends older sister was the town tramp. If you took her to a specific place for dinner (not too expensive) and then too a movie afterwards you were getting lucky that night.

          One night she came back early from a dinner out. We were surprised since we knew the guy she had gone out with. She said “it turns out I have minimum standards… who knew.”

          After dinner she paid her way and called a taxi home.
          We never let Bernie live it down that he was the only guy not good enough for her.

  • WalterBannon

    A minor bone of contention with the stated versus actual feminist intent around “sexual liberation”.

    Point 1. If feminists are truly for “sexual liberation” then why are they not screaming about the Muslims and their a) female genital mutilation b) blaming women for being raped c) treating women like property who have no rights, let alone sexual freedom and who must hide their sexuality because women are accountable for Muslim men’s “sexual emergencies”

    Point 2. If feminists believe that being free mean “sexual liberation” , which in practice means loose morals, lascivious, lewd and wanton behavior, or “hooking up” as it is now called, then why do they not take this to it ultimate conclusion and all become prostitutes? After all, once they clearly delineate the terms of all sexual relationships in a clear power structure wherein they completely control the act as a commercial entity via fees for services and men are merely customers who get only what they pay for, when, where and on the feminist’s sale terms, surely that would be the ideal end game for feminists?

    Point 3. If they do not all become prostitutes and instead just “give the milk away for free”, is this truly empowering women or it actually dis-empowering them. Under the previous social structure that valued families and marriage, women received a valuable consideration for their sexual acts. First, they retained complete control over who would receive them via their power to either accept or decline a marriage offer. Second, once they accepted such an offer they received privileged treatment by society and western law in which their husbands were responsible for their economic care, stability, and well being. Third, this obligation on the husband extended beyond the termination of said marriage (despite the fact that as publicly educated adults they posses the same opportunities, faculties and abilities to earn their own living). It seems to me that they surrendered all of these advantages in order to become unpaid prostitutes, a situation which only has benefited men who wish free sex without any obligations.

    I would contend that the true intent of sexual liberation was in aid of the goals of cultural Marxism, via the destruction of family values and western culture, and there was no real intent for this “liberation” to have empowered women. It is no wonder when you consider that the original proposal for this liberation came, not from women, but from the Marxist men of the Frankfurt school.

    • Blind Druid

      Nail On The Head. Feminism is hypocrisy.

    • Clausewitz

      These days, Feminism is just triumph of Marxism over Rationality.

  • andycanuck

    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

  • Mark Matis

    No need to worry about them. They’ve got cucumbers and zucchinis. They don’t need no steenkin’ man. And can you even imagine this sewage raising children???

  • Hardcore feminists have ruined countless lives, there’s no question. They don’t care about women, they are hard-left ideologues.

  • I was a bookish child, so I read a bunch of “classic” feminists when I was about 12. Betty Friedan was clearly very intelligent, (unlike, say, that clown Naomi Wolf who, ironically enough, would never have been half so famous if she hadn’t been pretty), but even then I could never make sense of this assumption that a job has to be so much better than raising kids. I’m sure being a housewife can suck. Toiling at some crappy job can’t? Every career person has an exciting, glamorous, rewarding job that lets them live life to the full?

    These feminists are neurotic people mainstreaming their personal maladjustments. They have a lot to answer for. Thank God I found Camille Paglia around that age. She might be nuts but at least she’s a real scholar and she can think.

  • bob e

    The gals are saving themselves for when Mohammad marches into town ..

  • Norman_In_New_York

    Now, let’s look at Israel, where women are drafted same as men to serve in the military. You can bet that they emerge from their service more inclined to seek marriage and create families after having incurred the discipline necessary for an army to function and absorbing the one-for-all mindset that forms the essence of nationalism. A survey found that 95% of Israeli couples are in fact married to each other.

  • Praxis Archon

    Long time reader. Perhaps I speak only for myself but notwithstanding that we appear to have been forced into a baby race with the muzzies due to our immigration policies I personally would rather not burden myself with the demands of fatherhood. Firstly it costs a fortune. Secondly the spectre of an ugly divorce always looms dooming you to a prolonged and expensive fight over property and custody. Thirdly the schools are incubators for the Hitler youth. Finally after wasting 4 or more years in university assuming they haven’t turned your little ones into self-loathing refugee activists there are no jobs unless you get one of the coveted spots in the graduate health profession schools. I’m thinking that the price signals are suggesting that we have too many children not too few. Why should I do something I am loathe to do to keep the ponzi scheme redistributionist schemes of the government going given that these children will probably live long enough to see the arrival of the Caliphate.

    • Clink9

      Just check the desk drawer for a pistol.

      • Praxis Archon

        I dunno awfully messy no?

        • Clink9

          You’d never know.

          • Praxis Archon

            That would be a question of aim and of metaphysics.