.webp?h=11 "Nuzzles, pounces on you, UwU, you're so warm!..")
COMMUNITY NOTEDJust as it's unfair that men can reproduce longer than women, here's something else that's unfair: women simply don't crave sex and relationships as much as men do. For many men, their love rival isn't Chad--it's a happy life alone. Link in replies. pic.twitter.com/T4ORU3ki3Z
— Cartoons Hate Her! (@CartoonsHateHer) March 11, 2025
from CHH.
Of course, plenty of men will say—either directly or indirectly—that the solution to all our problems (read: their problems) is to somehow "return" to a time when women couldn't earn their own incomes, and thus, were forced to settle. This is the reason they didn't freak out about porn so much until Onlyfans came around—they will reliably seethe over an Onlyfans model being able to buy a luxury car as a result of s*x work, but don't seem bothered by the luxurious life of porn producers, or Andrew Tate's sprawling and dimly-lit man cave. These men might mask their agenda with concern for birth rates or veneration of homeschool moms, but a lot of it is just about maximizing their own sexual options, or the sexual options of the men who listen to them. It's the male version of decreeing that any forty-year-old man who dates a twenty-five-year-old woman is a libertarian.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
She's right that the "you'll be sad and lonely without me!!"
is obvious moidcope, actually regardless of whether it's true or not. But she kind of writes like a beepboop rationalist robot?? so I don't trust her to talk about LOVE 
Love isn't something you can rationally understand or something you can measure with your test tubes and telescopes. Love is the most powerful force in the universe!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think it's true for some or in many cases, but I also think it's a bit delusional to believe women are always 100% better and happier in all their choices and never regret rejecting men in general or an individual man. I think we all know of women who turned down or blew up their relationship with a perfectly good man for something short term with a "better" (not always clearly better in the cases I'm aware of, but had something their current guy lacked I guess), or for an abstract idea of a better life (dropping the family at 45 to go to Bali Eat, Pray, Love style). There's also a bit of greed/selfishness brought about by feminism where they resent anything that might make a man happy, even if it isn't hurting them and they might also enjoy it a bit too. This leads many women to reject any prisoner's dilemma, even if the result would be a stag hunt (a family, a happy partnership with a man, etc.).
Anyway, before everyone got so invested in defending women at all costs this type of regret used to be represented in songs, books, movies, etc. It also used to be commonly understood love at first sight or getting the absolute best partner one can get as a requirement before settling down is foolish, sometimes one has give someone who is decent a chance and love comes later. Anyway, here's an anthem for the femcels.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, She posted that and you have posted that here. It's dumb and does not address or respond to anything I said. just piles on insults to try to act like anyone who disagrees with her is evil. I'm not really talking about anyone's "happiness" (I believe most "happiness studies" are bullshit (check out the work of Ashley Frawley for more on how flawed they are). To continue with the stag hunt scenario, they're so worried a man may get a little bit more satisfaction or enjoyment out of something than they will, that they refuse to do anything that would benefit both them and a man greater than what each of them could do alone (have a family, a lifelong partnership (that will surely involve compromises, but both will likely be better off for it), etc.). Sure happiness, as difficult as it may be to measure reliably, is part of that but it's more than that. Children, sharing resources, the measurable health benefits of not being alone.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your first sentence:
It has less to do with women being afraid a man gets more out of marriage, and instead a fear that they will spend much of their time on domestic labor and are more content with the single life.
Either way, why do you care whether or not women are making the optimal decisions for themselves? For some reason you latched onto the "happiness" part of what I linked, and not the, "ignore misogynists when they are discussing what choices women should make" message.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You do or do not acknowledge that there's more at stake here than a nebulous measure of happiness? One could still have children via single parenthood, but most see it as a sub-optimal choice. One can still find companionship from friends and a "chosen family" of superfriends or however one thinks of it too I suppose, but I suspect the quality of that kind of companionship is not any better than one in a romantic partnership. There's also the option of political lesbianism which is maybe the best, assuming one can find a better lesbian partner than they would a hetero one.
The latter part of your sentence negates the first part, since you admit they're greedily calculating what they're putting into it (without acknowledging what they may be getting in return, all that matters is that domestic labor is perfectly balanced on her terms or the man does more).
I suppose the same reason you've responded to very little of what I said (lazily dropping a quote I've already seen posted in this thread multiple times that is barely relevant and calling me a misogynist) without acknowledging any of the rest of my post (which I think was fair to both sexes, acknowledging that any choice will inevitably have downsides). Clearly these misogynists who are not with listening to (including me) have struck a chord in some way, or why are you here arguing with me, or why is your beloved CHH (who is happily married) talking about these men she believes are unworthy to comment on women's choices? If these women are living the perfectly optimized life given the mate choices available to them, why are they and their happily married defenders concerned with the thoughts of men they regard as beneath them at all? Why not just enjoy the great single life and let the misogynist losers talk?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's a lot of cope when you claimed you never mentioned happiness.
No it doesn't. What the man is getting isn't entering the calculus. And it's hilarious that you are using greed to describe women's motivations given the next part.
I'm the only one who quoted that part of the essay. Another instance of you make a claim that's verifiably false.
I acknowledged that in my second comment, where it's ridiculous to think that women are making their choices simply because they think men might be getting the better deal.
Do the single women and their married defenders not get to talk? I see a ton of people angrily responding to this essay, so your argument goes both ways. Maybe it's just fun arguing on the internet.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I used the word happier one time, to address the sentiment (that CHH seems pretty focused on). I did not say women will be happier as measured by the types of studies that measure happiness (although there's ample evidence to support that claim as well. I just don't think happiness studies are what we should be focusing on.) I also don't think we should throw out the kind of wisdom that came before feminism regarding relationships and the balance necessary to find and maintain a good one because we need to make men miserable as some kind of attempt to balance things on feminist terms or make millennial and zoomer men pay reparations for their ancestors who benefited from the patriarchy more (if you want to pretend that isn't a motivating factor here, you're the one coping).
If one use of the word "happier" to describe the CHH argument is something you feel is a slam dunk, I think it's fair to say this quoted portion is part of the same part and makes the same argument. Since you seem to think you're on reddit.com playing a debate game with rules or something, verifiably false claim made thrown back at you.
No you didn't. Both the post I was responding to and my post talk about something more than the gender war aspect of all this (though that is an important part). That's the messier issue of the nature of romantic love and living with the lack of it (regardless of gender war concerns, I think most would agree that a life without it or with it for only a short and fleeting period of time is a less full life than one with it for most of their life). That aside, denial or refusal to consider the ill will toward men implied with the arguments and assumptions made is a lack of acknowledgment of them. It's also worth mentioning the Paul Dolan study CHH mentions was later debunked. At any rate, you're just being obtuse. You yourself brought up doing more domestic labor as the primary concern on the part of women, clearly showing a great deal of concern about men getting a "better" deal in having an unpaid housekeeper/maid (as the typical feminist framing of the situation).
Sure, they can talk. However, they're the ones who seem to feel that certain men should not be allowed to talk and want to dictate the terms of discussion. I think it's only fair to have their own motivations questioned. CHH doesn't seem to allow for a reasonable dissenting opinion on this issue, it's all mean old misogynists and loser men who want women to settle for them. If that's the standard of discussion, they should expect judgments about their own choices and quality on the dating market. It's also fair to acknowledge the frequency and amount of attention paid to a group of people who one claims have justifiably rejected. Posting about it day in, day out (like many self-proclaimed happy feminists do, CHH herself seems to talk about misogynist men and incels quite a bit, she's even making money off women and male feminists who agree with her) does call into question whether one is completely settled with their choice, and/or maybe the partnered ones are just trying to find a group that's cool to hate and dogpile on them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This gets better and better.
It doesn't matter what you call it, women would still rather be single than be with many men. Despite your insistance that this is some culture war, only a tiny minority of women are like Andrea Dworkin (who ended up in a weird partnership with a cute twink anyway).
No part of that overlaps with my quote. You are 0/2.
Lol. Who is the one reflexively downmarseying the other party here? Or who edited their comment when they got pantsed? You are a terminal redditor.
This goes back to my Dworkin comment. Women aren't reading books about surveys of married people. They are looking at people in their lives, and they see what's going on with their married and divorced friends. That's why they are setting a high standard for who they want to marry - becuase they don't want to be a single mother or a "married single mother" (i.e. a situation where their husband is basically another child).
She has a monetized substack and knows how to get engagement.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context