Hacker News Reader

Comment by mym1990 | Hacker News Reader

mym1990

Many still have the desire, but today have the choice to walk away from that desire in order to pursue a career, or to just live life in a different way. Some also have the desire but have trouble conceiving, or don't have the means to support a child. The gap is definitely there.

View on HN

> Many still have the desire, but today have the choice to walk away from that desire in order to pursue a career, or to just live life in a different way.

I'd say in that case they don't have the desire. They may want children all else being equal, but they don't want to put in what it would cost them to have children. Otherwise they would.

Okay…I usually have the desire to eat cake, I don’t have it for every meal though.

I'm not claiming that desire is zero, just that it's below replacement rate. Just like if the desire for cake isn't enough to sustain a bakery in my neighbourhood.

the deciding metric here is how old are they when they start wanting children. naturally, that factor is ignored, because it's politically incorrect to discuss it for a number of reasons.

a woman in her thirties has very slim chances to find a partner because men in their thirties have unlimited access to an unlimited number of women in their twenties. it's a harsh truth, but burying one's head in the sand doesn't really help.

> men in their thirties have unlimited access to an unlimited number of women in their twenties

On the contrary. Maybe the most desirable 20% do, but many men in their thirties have very little access to women of any age.

yes, there certain discrepancies between what men and women consider desirable in a partner, but we aren't really allowed to discuss this on the internet without certain folx coming out of the woods to claim that 2+2=5.

still, your claim does not invalidate my point, does it?

"There are no men available" and "women do not want the men who are available" are quite different situations with different solution spaces.

no, no, my point was neither of those things. my point was that "women past a certain age have slim chances of finding a man who would be willing to have children with them," and I don't think it's a particularly outrageous or controversial statement.

Then perhaps we have a real disagreement. I think for the vast majority of women over 30 there is a ready supply of men who would be willing to have children with them - just not men that those women would condescend to have children with.

which doesn't invalidate my point, does it? :)

I don't know where is that you live that men are so desperate and eager to commit to low-value women, but in the world I live in, men in their thirties are unmarried and/or childless by choice.

Cultures differ wildly across the world. Where I live, the median age for a male to get married is 37, and the median age for women is 33 or so, so I would suggest that you not be so dogmatic (as an aside, US people seem to marry absurdly early for my tastes).

> which doesn't invalidate my point, does it?

Yes, it very much does?

> a woman in her thirties has very slim chances to find a partner because men in their thirties have unlimited access to an unlimited number of women in their twenties.

This is utter nonsense. I met my now wife at 31, and can assure you that I had little to no interest in 20 somethings at that point (having made those mistakes in the past).

Clearly you live in a very different world from me, or you're just trolling (more likely given the green account name).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com