Hacker News Reader

Comment by room500 | Hacker News Reader

> it'll be harder for you to find a partner as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband)

I feel like we just went back in time 80 years. No, women don't need to spend their 20's finding a husband. They can have also go to school, volunteer, have friends, start a career. You know - the things men can do.

> High-quality men have no desire to raise someone else's kids

What does this even mean? Let me guess - you are a high-quality man?

This comment is so backwards.

View on HN

> No, women don't need to spend their 20's finding a husband. They can have also go to school, volunteer, have friends, start a career. You know - the things men can do.

Nothing in GP's comment suggests ~that women should spend their twenties finding a husband~ (EDIT: I missed that sentence in the original comment), nor that they shouldn't do the things you just mentioned.

I don't understand how this is in any way apropos.

> Nothing in GP's comment suggests that women should spend their twenties finding a husband, nor that they shouldn't do the things you just mentioned.

That is in fact exactly what the comment seems to suggest, in these lines.

> as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband

room500's response was exactly what I had in mind too, when I was reading the parent comment.

It very much feels like the GP had something specific in mind for "high-quality" that insinuates that caring for someone else's children is not a high quality thing to do.

I believe that quality is not what they are showing when they focus the comment on what women "should be doing", or if they're still seeing it as "someone else's kids".

I must have missed the statement in parentheses the first time I read it (I honestly don't remember it being there before, apologies), so I retract the part on what GP said about "should". However, I maintain that the comment doesn't say anything about whether women shouldn't do the things the other person said; there's no implication one way or the other in the original comment and most people do both.

On the matter of kids and "high quality", I made no comment on that earlier, and I make no comment now.

Men can have kids well into their 50’s. If a girl wastes her 20s on the carousel, by the time she’s in her 30’s, her reproductive opportunities are starting to dwindle.

Women’s attractiveness starts declining in her late 20’s much faster than it does for men. We shouldn’t pretend like it doesn’t, and pretend like we don’t understand why women in their 30’s can’t find Mr. Right.

This isn't a gender thing. Just because you don't agree, the GP's comment isn't any less valid. Part of that is culture and malleable, part is just biological facts (being an old parent just sucks). Most Men spend their 20s thinking about finding a wife, too.

No. It was a 100% gender thing.

Notice that the comment never mentioned that men shouldn't divorce because they are past their 20s when they should be finding a wife.

Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.

GP's comment is less valid because it is from an era where women were less-than.

I think you're reading way too much into that comment.

It's generally considered a fact that women have a slightly (statistically) more difficult time than men to find a partner after their 20s (and the reverse is true - men have it tougher in their 20s compared to women), and GP's comment is discussing why that complicates things wrt divorce.

> Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.

I think that "high quality" means that they don't want to be second best to another man/woman. Totally understandable.

> No. It was a 100% gender thing.

> Notice that the comment never mentioned that men shouldn't divorce because they are past their 20s when they should be finding a wife.

> Notice that the comment never mentions that high-quality women would never want to raise someone else's kid.

> GP's comment is less valid because it is from an era where women were less-than.

In what world do you live in where on average older women are considered more desirable partners than older men? By and large men are attracted to looks (or they prioritize looks a lot more than other qualities) while women are attracted to a set of qualities besides looks (or they prioritize other qualities a lot more than looks).

You can argue that's sexist and old-fashioned, but that's just how attraction works. Good luck changing the world!

> This isn't a gender thing. [...] (being an old parent just sucks) [...] //

There is a deal of sex-based difference here: being an older mother is harmful for the mother and the child; being an older father is far, far, less so (older fathers might be better for their kids?). Young women can choose a mate from all ages of men. Young men need to choose a mate -- if they wish to procreate I mean -- from the pool of fertile and healthy younger women. Medical science has eroded a little of that difference, but it still starts to get dangerous for women to fall pregnant in their late-30s.

An example of how that difference plays out is that in a childless couple at age 50 the woman basically has no chance to have children of her own, but the male could quite reasonably be expected to be fertile for a couple more decades. Thus, if a couple are unable to procreate and the male wishes to do so, then there is a tension; a biological impetus towards them leaving their wife and finding another partner.

But procreation-related-statistics only tell the story of one aspect of a persons life.

A divorce can be new start, and life has much more to offer than ‘choosing your mate’

Reply on news.ycombinator.com