Why don't they just adopt? There are so many kids out here in the world that need a good, stable home with at least one parent. One parent is better than none.
My suspicion is many of these childless men have other issues like alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic pain, underemployment/unemployment, criminal convictions/jail time, psychological difficulties, or undiagnosed autism, that make forming relationships especially difficult for them. Women have lower incidences of these problems- 90% of the prison population are men, schizophrenia has a earlier age of onset in men compared to women, and autism has a 4:1 gender skew in favor of men, whether low or high functioning. About 12% of men over the age of 12 struggle with drug addiction, compared to only 6% of women. I'd be curious to see or find a study asking these men how many close friends they have, because my suspicion again is that these men are very isolated. I dont blame these guys, and I'm sympathetic to their struggles, but I think we're missing a piece of the puzzle as to why they're alone. Whether women are right to not even give these men the time of day or whether they're being unfairly judgemental because these men don't fit their "type" or who they expected they'd date or marry, is an unanswered question in modern dating and relationships. I imagine the guy who has numerous violent felonies isn't a great guy, but some of those guys who are dedicated to improving their life or maintaining sobriety may be fine, albeit a bit different than your typical guy.
There is a very high likelihood that these statistics you mentioned are actually stereotypes and systemic bias. There is probably not a higher instance of autism, as an example, but simply a higher likelihood of proper diagnosis. Also, your assumption that women are simply being selective is extremely problematic. Many women cannot afford to live without a partner, abusive or not. For many of the other "reasons" you identify, there is a high likelihood that women are also suffering undiagnosed and unsupported with those conditions. Your link starts out explaining how women were excluded from studies forever and then one magical day, they suddenly become welcome in healthcare and the studies become accurate. Not buying it.
So, it's also entirely possible whether you'd like to believe it or not, that men are more severely affected by these conditions than women, which then results in the higher diagnosis rates. This is somewhat misleading, because there may actually be no real difference in prevalence, but because these symptoms are considered to occur on a spectrum and men are more likely to be more severely affected and more impaired, it then leads to a higher likelihood of being diagnosed. That was the original point I was making. Perhaps, a better metric would be social functioning. Men do much more poorly on that metric than women, and that's even agreed upon by a number of researchers. Things like dating, having even one friend, etc. The average young woman today in developed countries, and Richard has talked about this a TON, is more likely to have a bachelor's degree than the average young man, and more likely to live on their own, than the same young man who's more likely to live with their parents. That dosen't sound like a world where woman are forced to be with a man no matter what. Maybe, that was more likely to be true in a world where women didn't work, but not anymore. The average college grad makes more money than a non college grad, so young women are poised to have their own financial independence, which eliminates the economic necessity of having to be married to afford literally anything.
Women have always worked, they just still aren't paid equally for the types of work they do. That's been studied a lot and continues to be well documented.
Meanwhile, as men in power transitioned the US economy from one income households in the 60s to requiring two incomes to maintain a middle class lifestyle in the 90s, women had to do additional work outside the home and needed to attend college in order to qualify for higher incomes, still well under their male counterparts. We also were not part of the investor establishment who decided to stagnate wages.
Perhaps, their children, watching these well documented lopsided gender dynamics are just much less likely to have children and expect both men and women to operate in the same outdated gender expected roles.
Maybe, they don't feel as responsible to support men who cannot seem to adjust to changing gender norms, whether you want to believe it or not.
I think we will just have to disagree on who is "more affected" or experiencing more detrimental side effects and just change minds about what women and men should do to support all parents, instead of investors.
Women wanted to work in the 60s and 70s, and entered the workforce from that point on in larger and larger numbers. Higher and higher prices became profitable/possible, because half of the population now earned a wage. There was no vast conspiracy by "men in power" whoever that would even be, to make this happen, or make housing, college or healthcare more expensive. Some things like TV's or food are actually cheaper, adjusted for inflation, than they were 50 or 60 years, and the quality has improved dramatically. People forget that the 1950s lifestyle was possible, because people lived much simpler lives. Small house, one tv if there even was one, one car for the whole family, only eating out at restaurants for special occasions, most meals cooked at home, vacation was driving 100 miles away, no airline travel, and healthcare was more rudimentary, so it cost less, with less treatment options.
Also, if we're going to talk about the so called gender pay gap, it's really actually a motherhood penalty. Women are the ones more likely to drop out of the workforce or work part-time when kids are born, which obviously depresses their wages. If you compare women to men without controlling for statistical factors, you can then come up with the erroneous conclusion that there's rampant wage discrimination going on. If people still want to believe that and think companies underpay women due to their sex, even with companies running a huge risk of lawsuits and employment discrimination, that's their prerogative, but it's not factual.
Factual statistics actually support the reality that even childless women make less than their male counterparts in the US. Unmarried women are penalized even more. In fact, when women join a new industry all of the wages go down. Men get promoted and they stay as middle managers.
There is rampant discrimination and very little transparency, accountability, or enforcement at all.
Most of our labor relations protections have been decimated. Corporations are actively anti-union, monopolistic, and there is no legal ramifications. The penalty is even greater for women after 50, when their kids have all grown up. Men are made partners, while women never breakthrough to ownership, forced to cap out at middle management. Statistics, studies, and real life wealth disparities actually do prove it. It's a very real gender pay gap.
Men hold most positions of power (and choice). We still haven't elected a woman to be President. We have only nominated one. That's a fact.
Men control most Board rooms, most legislatures, and most of the wealth in this country is held by men. Just more facts.
Just because you attribute all of the choices to women instead, doesn't actually make it true. Seems more like wishful thinking or willful ignorance to me.
I looked at that link, and read the entire piece. My original point still stands. When people have kids, moms are more likely to stop working, or reduce working hours to take care of kids, across all education levels. That skews women's averages down because they're not collecting a wage anymore. Meanwhile, men still continue to work the same number of hours or pick up more hours, while still doing less childcare work at home than women do. In the same workplace, there's simply very little evidence of wage discrimination. Are you saying that women who comprise 50% of the workforce who are hiring managers, or payroll are consciously paying other women less, because they're women, and then in a weird act of self-hatred, and because they think women are inferior, decide to pay them less? Logically, does that make any sense to you?? I'll extend an olive branch, and say that predominantly female occupations like social work, nursing, teaching, and healthcare are woefully underpaid, but a lot of women are well aware they'll make less money than an engineer, trucker, carpenter, or electrician, but imo they're attracted to those fields because they find it more personally fulfilling in a healing/helping occupation than working as a auto mechanic, or a software engineer. If those are people's legitimate preferences, then all the more power to them. To quote from the link I'll post below, "the motherhood penalty is now the most significant driver of the gender pay gap".
I'm also not sure why the metric for success is defined as making partner or being CEO. 99.999% of men never hold those jobs either. Those jobs also come with a punishing amount of time at the office, 60-70 hrs/week and working on the weekends isn't uncommon, and losing relationships with your friends, spouse, kids because you run out of hours in the day. I'd say most men who only see the dollar signs and don't see the downsides are pretty dumb for wanting to do those jobs, at the expense of relationships with your family or friends. A lot of women don't want those jobs anyways if it requires them to work 70 hrs/week.
"My suspicion is many of these childless men have other issues like alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic pain, underemployment/unemployment, criminal convictions/jail time, psychological difficulties, or undiagnosed autism, that make forming relationships especially difficult for them. "
That would explain why they are also not adopting children.
Very interesting piece. I'm particularly fascinated by this:
"Strikingly, the negative impact of entering older age without children seems to be more significant for men. Childless older women have higher net wealth than any other group, and considerably more than childless older men ($174,000 v. $133,000), and better self-reported health than other groups:"
Childless older SINGLE women, at least to me, are most likely making very deliberate, conscious choices that they DONT want children. Among my friends, I see this strong decision to NOT have children, most likely because these women know that the brunt of childcare will fall on them.
On the other hand, many of the men I know who are childless aren't as convicted about their decision to have children or not (again, maybe b/c it comes from a place of privilege that they dont have to worry about taking care of the child).
Is the data also adjusting for single vs in a relationship? What is the effect?
Also, are there generational differences driving the fortunes of childless men of a certain age that may or may not be true of the men growing up today?
If one could find a group of older men who grew up in a less gendered community (where the man’s main role isn’t only to work outside the home) such that their was a higher rate of participation in running the household and where men doing the nurturing was normalised would their fortunes be different?
I’m reminded of the saying “women mourn and men replace” and have seen men in their 70’s and 80’s who are very keen, desperate even, to marry women for companionship yes, but also for someone to take care of them. Childless men also don’t have the option of children to take care of them.
Perhaps I’m over-simplifying in reaching for a possible cause.
The filtering mechanism must have some impact here. Many of the men who end up childless in todays society will tend to be men priced out of the dating market: physically less attractive, less income, less status and thus options basically. Women who end up childless in todays society will tend be women who priced themselves out of the dating market: high income, but hypergamy didn't allow her to "settle for less than what she deserves". Its two very different starting points. The former is more forced, the latter more optional.
Even taking into account that women have higher educational attainment today than men, not every woman is a doctor or a CEO. There are a ton of women that are cashiers or nursing assistants, who would be fine with someone making 40,000-50,000/yr. The pity party of "I don't make enough money, I don't drive a nice enough car, I'm not attractive enough" is really annoying after a while, because if you make an effort to talk to people, pick up some interesting hobbies, take care of yourself and treat women respectfully, you'll very likely find someone. Whether you want to be with them is a different matter, but I find it almost impossible that someone never had anyone in their entire life that they could've dated.
The point here is that the marginal value of the male has dropped. Its not just education attainment of women, its also the obesity epidemic (the 20% who are not fat have inflated value), social media, and even the rise in inequality that hurts medium to low status males. I am not arguing that men will necessarily be alone, only the bottom 30% would suffer that fate, it's that the options they are given are suboptimal. I know many 50K physically fit hard working plumbers, who the only options they have are obese or semi-obese women. Sure, they are not alone, but its not exactly their grandpas options either.
"The point here is that the marginal value of the male has dropped. Its not just education attainment of women, its also the obesity epidemic (the 20% who are not fat have inflated value)"
--- OK so that means 80% of women are fat? They can pair up with fat men, who must also be at a high percentage, no?
" the rise in inequality that hurts medium to low status males. "
--- Assortative mating has been natural law since the dawn of time. Medium to low status males pair up with medium to low status females. That fat girl who works the drive-thru at Taco Bell? The fat guy who works the drive-thru at Burger King across the street will be taking her to see Killers of the Flower Moon tonight.
If we're gonna discuss obesity, the average American man today is 5'9 and 197 lbs. That's firmly in the category of being overweight, and no most guys don't work out enough to have a low enough body fat %, where they can say it's muscle. The average American male GI with millions of American men who joined the service and served in combat during WW2 was 5'8 and between 140-150 lbs. This is one of my pet peeves watching any movie set during WW2 or the 40s with modern day actors, men were much thinner back then if you'd like your film to be period accurate, as were women. My original point was that there are indeed options out there, but men don't take them, which I guess is okay if that's their preference, but it's very hard to ever take them seriously if they complain they can't find anyone. Plumbers weren't dating Marilyn Monroe in the 1950s either, but Dr's, lawyers, film directors, and sports stars like Joe Dimaggio were. This isn't anything new, but many of those guys still found someone, because being married was the normative thing to do.
Right. I think guys like Poncho either don't get out much, or they just selectively choose not to observe what's out here. What's out here is - assortative mating. Walk through any mall, Walmart or go to any large gathering like an amusement part or whatever and what you see is assortative mating. Couples who are more or less the same on the 1-10 looks rating scale. Couples who are in the same socio-economic class and who have more or less the same level of educational achievement.
The issue is porn and social media. Poncho and his type think they "deserve" an instagram "model" type looking woman.
I disagree with the idea behind any rating system and I think it's so flawed and superficial, because there's so many factors that go into whether or not someone wants to be with someone. People date/marry people of the same social class/educational attainment, because they probably have similar life experiences, political beliefs and values. The incel ideology imo is very harmful and self-defeating for young men. Look at Pete Davidson, who leaves people incredulous and bewildered. Well, it turns out that women like someone who's funny, ambitious, easy to talk to, compassionate, and respectful towards women, and has a good relationship with his mom, all of which make women think guy X would be a good long-term partner. Even if Pete was some guy from Staten Island, but never became famous or rich, he probably wouldn't date Kim Kardashian, but he'd still do well dating all types of women who weren't celebrities, who let's be honest only really date each other anyways. But, that's not relevant for 99.999% of the population. Most of these guys imo have autism, or other psychological difficulties, but women want someone who has good social skills and dosen't say rude or inappropriate things, which means these guys are going to struggle in the dating field. But the good news is that you can get better at learning how to socialize with people with practice, even if you have autism or anxiety.
If you're a raving misogynist, don't shower, shave or brush your teeth, play video games all day, or come across as a creep, weirdo, say inappropriate things, or make women feel threatened, women don't want to be around you. Most of these men show a total failure of imagination of seeing the world from a woman's perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who might be autistic, and don't realize that women are nervous about being assaulted, sexually assaulted, or victimized. If you're creepy or only interested in sex, women pick up on that immediately. Women have to learn this to be able to protect themselves, it's a form of self-survival quite literally. Most of these guys could absolutely find someone if they talked to women long enough, so women felt comfortable with them and vetted them, and then they could think about asking them out on a date. But you need to have good social skills to do that.
"But the good news is that you can get better at learning how to socialize with people with practice, even if you have autism or anxiety."
There are plenty of women out here with aspergers, autism and definitely anxiety, OCD, ADD, etc. These weird and socially awkward guys could pair up with women who are the same. I guess neither are meeting each other either online or off? But first it's more important for them to make same-sex friendships.
I dont think we disagree much. Yes, "Plumbers weren't dating Marilyn Monroe in the 1950s either" but a plumber in 1950 could expect a skinny women. I have friends who are mechanics, plumbers, and have a hard time finding just a skinny women without kids. They themselves are not in anyway fat. Although, thinking about my sample size, maybe this is more of an issue in Los Angeles, than in say small town America.
Btw, I am no incel. I personally do date Marilyn Monroe types, but its because I'm comfortably in the upper/middle class. Im just expressing what I see....
I like your description, “didn’t allow her to settle for less than what she deserves.” She “didn’t settle” herself right out of the reproduction chain.
Glad to see you flagging this topic for follow up. I wonder how risk-taking plays into the outcome disparities between childless men and women. As I understand it, men, on average, are more impulsive and tend to take riskier risks than women. Is this tendency tempered in fathers? Do childless men continue to be riskier and more impulsive in later stages than fathers?
I’m one of those childless gay men, and while I and my partner have deliberately chosen to not pursue fatherhood, I do see how childlessness can contribute to the general loneliness and and purposeless many men feel. I sometimes feel like men have a harder time “self starting” connection and meaning, and having children can be one of those external factors that bring immense value to life.
I'm pretty sure it's worse than than it appears. Those stats don't capture the reality that, after divorce, many fathers & children are cut off from each other.
Very interesting data. Is there any source of how this sex ratio of childless male and female is evolving per year in any country? This would be like the GINI coefficient of inequality. I would bet that this sex ratio is increasing in recent 50 years paralleling the decrease in marriages
If you look at data from population genetics and the structures of individuals' DNA, the proportion of men having children has always been lower than that of women. Indeed, this observation explains why each of us has almost twice as many female as male ancestors. [As odd as that sounds, that is what the data say, a much higher proportion of men never have children.]
It’s hard not to see childless men through an economic and demographic lens. Fertility rates are trending down globally. There are valid reasons to be anxious about bringing children into the world in its current state. We aren’t exempt from the rules of population biology. Anna Louie Sussman recently wrote in the Atlantic how many women report freezing their eggs because they are struggling to find a male co-parent. It isn’t hard to envision a world where being childless is as common as being unmarried. I’m interested in why so many men are failing to thrive whether they have children or not. I believe it’s related to the sheer number of simultaneous inflection points we are at in our economic, political and ecological systems.
"here are valid reasons to be anxious about bringing children into the world in its current state."
There are very few other times in history where it would have been less risky to bring children into the world. That's just an excuse. What no one wants to admit is that, since the baby boomers, our society has revolved around a perpetual youth. And children are a major drag on that.
For some people the perpetual music festival scene may be a reason not to have kids but for other people it's finances and other more serious reasons. We've also got self-aware people out here who know they wouldn't be good parents.
No it's not. Most of the people allegedly putting off kids for financial reasons are more well off than any of their ancestors except maybe the last generation or two.
"We've also got self-aware people out here who know they wouldn't be good parents."
Sure, but they're not the majority. Most of the social science research shows that as long as you're not abusive and have an emotional investment in your children they will turn out okay.
People don't have to, sure. But if you get significantly below 2.1 children per woman there are major demographic consequences in your future. Things like old age entitlements, a system of care for the elderly, etc. become incredibly difficult if there are more people pulling from the system than putting into it. That's a big deal.
For a time those issues will probably be remedied via immigration. But gradually the human race may just peter out. I don't know who expects it to go on forever.
"Most of the people allegedly putting off kids for financial reasons are more well off than any of their ancestors except maybe the last generation or two."
Yes, that's mainly who I've heard from. They are worried about their financial futures.
What’s interesting regarding the perceived risk of having children is until recently it was common to spread the risks among many children (i.e. just have a lot) and now resourced parents seem to be more concerned with the risk of downward mobility or quality of life for their children. They put the resources they would once put into 3 children into one child if at all.
But even the downward mobility they fear would still give them a standard of living much higher than almost anyone who's ever lived. Economic conditions matter but at the end of the day it's mostly an excuse for wanting to live for short term hedonic pleasure, and as the parent of 2 young children I can tell you that my score in that category has gone down quite a bit.
Late comment, but the biggest problem with that cultural pattern, as you've alluded to is that it's not sustainable. Birthrates don't rise above replacement, if everyone wants to hit the music festival scene, go out to a new restaurant every weekend, and live their lives for their own self-gratification. The groups that have high birthrates even in the midst of modern culture, like the Amish or Orthodox/Hasidic Jews, live apart from the wider culture, but also have different cultural values that think children are a commandment from God, ie be fruitful and multiply, or view children as more valuable than any amount of money or wealth. I actually think they're right in that regard. A hundred dollar bill is indistinguishable from another hundred dollar bill, but a child born of two people, with their genes, traits, quirks, and unique life experiences, is a person so unique that they're interchangeable with anyone else. People valorize money, but forget it's just a medium of exchange.
So true. So many factors at play to be able to reach many conclusions. I think it’s fascinating that the poorest and the richest people I meet often have the most children while my middle/upper middle class friends live in anxiety and scarcity about “falling behind”.
The data bears that out. Fertility is a U shaped curve across the income spectrum, with the middle and upper middle class having the lowest fertility rates.
"For every one of those there are likely many more who just don’t manage to find the right person or the right time to become a parent. That’s a very different thing. And it looks like it might be especially corrosive for men to end up on a bare branch of their family tree."
Thank you for delving into this topic. Just reading your piece conjures up ideas, hypotheses, anecdotes, recollections--a whole uncharted wilderness of unstructured and unmeasured human experience and behavior. This seems to me to be a consequence of the unaddressed issues in the development of boys in the modern world about which you have a good start--and a long ways to go.
Some possible explainers of the "more advantageous position" of childless older women compared to men (*these are just my intuitive thoughts; I have no research data to point to).
- these childless women will likely include a lot of 'career women' who have positively prioritised career success over motherhood.
- it is my impression that older men feel the need a woman in their life in order to thrive to a much greater extent than older women do
- the childless men will perhaps include many who have just been generally unsuccessful with women (for whatever reason). I have written recently on my own Substack on the huge difference in the intra-sexual fortunes of both sexes (but there is- so I believe - social science research evidence that the divergence between most-and-least-successful is especially great in the case of men) https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
A lot of men view themselves as losers, if they can't attract a woman, or partner. There's no positive script in our culture, for childless or unattached men. The self-concept of how men think about themselves revolves around having a girl, to a greater extent than it does for women having a man.
Why don't they just adopt? There are so many kids out here in the world that need a good, stable home with at least one parent. One parent is better than none.
My suspicion is many of these childless men have other issues like alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic pain, underemployment/unemployment, criminal convictions/jail time, psychological difficulties, or undiagnosed autism, that make forming relationships especially difficult for them. Women have lower incidences of these problems- 90% of the prison population are men, schizophrenia has a earlier age of onset in men compared to women, and autism has a 4:1 gender skew in favor of men, whether low or high functioning. About 12% of men over the age of 12 struggle with drug addiction, compared to only 6% of women. I'd be curious to see or find a study asking these men how many close friends they have, because my suspicion again is that these men are very isolated. I dont blame these guys, and I'm sympathetic to their struggles, but I think we're missing a piece of the puzzle as to why they're alone. Whether women are right to not even give these men the time of day or whether they're being unfairly judgemental because these men don't fit their "type" or who they expected they'd date or marry, is an unanswered question in modern dating and relationships. I imagine the guy who has numerous violent felonies isn't a great guy, but some of those guys who are dedicated to improving their life or maintaining sobriety may be fine, albeit a bit different than your typical guy.
https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/differences-men-women/
There is a very high likelihood that these statistics you mentioned are actually stereotypes and systemic bias. There is probably not a higher instance of autism, as an example, but simply a higher likelihood of proper diagnosis. Also, your assumption that women are simply being selective is extremely problematic. Many women cannot afford to live without a partner, abusive or not. For many of the other "reasons" you identify, there is a high likelihood that women are also suffering undiagnosed and unsupported with those conditions. Your link starts out explaining how women were excluded from studies forever and then one magical day, they suddenly become welcome in healthcare and the studies become accurate. Not buying it.
So, it's also entirely possible whether you'd like to believe it or not, that men are more severely affected by these conditions than women, which then results in the higher diagnosis rates. This is somewhat misleading, because there may actually be no real difference in prevalence, but because these symptoms are considered to occur on a spectrum and men are more likely to be more severely affected and more impaired, it then leads to a higher likelihood of being diagnosed. That was the original point I was making. Perhaps, a better metric would be social functioning. Men do much more poorly on that metric than women, and that's even agreed upon by a number of researchers. Things like dating, having even one friend, etc. The average young woman today in developed countries, and Richard has talked about this a TON, is more likely to have a bachelor's degree than the average young man, and more likely to live on their own, than the same young man who's more likely to live with their parents. That dosen't sound like a world where woman are forced to be with a man no matter what. Maybe, that was more likely to be true in a world where women didn't work, but not anymore. The average college grad makes more money than a non college grad, so young women are poised to have their own financial independence, which eliminates the economic necessity of having to be married to afford literally anything.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4786616/
Women have always worked, they just still aren't paid equally for the types of work they do. That's been studied a lot and continues to be well documented.
Meanwhile, as men in power transitioned the US economy from one income households in the 60s to requiring two incomes to maintain a middle class lifestyle in the 90s, women had to do additional work outside the home and needed to attend college in order to qualify for higher incomes, still well under their male counterparts. We also were not part of the investor establishment who decided to stagnate wages.
Perhaps, their children, watching these well documented lopsided gender dynamics are just much less likely to have children and expect both men and women to operate in the same outdated gender expected roles.
Maybe, they don't feel as responsible to support men who cannot seem to adjust to changing gender norms, whether you want to believe it or not.
I think we will just have to disagree on who is "more affected" or experiencing more detrimental side effects and just change minds about what women and men should do to support all parents, instead of investors.
Women wanted to work in the 60s and 70s, and entered the workforce from that point on in larger and larger numbers. Higher and higher prices became profitable/possible, because half of the population now earned a wage. There was no vast conspiracy by "men in power" whoever that would even be, to make this happen, or make housing, college or healthcare more expensive. Some things like TV's or food are actually cheaper, adjusted for inflation, than they were 50 or 60 years, and the quality has improved dramatically. People forget that the 1950s lifestyle was possible, because people lived much simpler lives. Small house, one tv if there even was one, one car for the whole family, only eating out at restaurants for special occasions, most meals cooked at home, vacation was driving 100 miles away, no airline travel, and healthcare was more rudimentary, so it cost less, with less treatment options.
Also, if we're going to talk about the so called gender pay gap, it's really actually a motherhood penalty. Women are the ones more likely to drop out of the workforce or work part-time when kids are born, which obviously depresses their wages. If you compare women to men without controlling for statistical factors, you can then come up with the erroneous conclusion that there's rampant wage discrimination going on. If people still want to believe that and think companies underpay women due to their sex, even with companies running a huge risk of lawsuits and employment discrimination, that's their prerogative, but it's not factual.
Factual statistics actually support the reality that even childless women make less than their male counterparts in the US. Unmarried women are penalized even more. In fact, when women join a new industry all of the wages go down. Men get promoted and they stay as middle managers.
There is rampant discrimination and very little transparency, accountability, or enforcement at all.
Most of our labor relations protections have been decimated. Corporations are actively anti-union, monopolistic, and there is no legal ramifications. The penalty is even greater for women after 50, when their kids have all grown up. Men are made partners, while women never breakthrough to ownership, forced to cap out at middle management. Statistics, studies, and real life wealth disparities actually do prove it. It's a very real gender pay gap.
Men hold most positions of power (and choice). We still haven't elected a woman to be President. We have only nominated one. That's a fact.
Men control most Board rooms, most legislatures, and most of the wealth in this country is held by men. Just more facts.
Just because you attribute all of the choices to women instead, doesn't actually make it true. Seems more like wishful thinking or willful ignorance to me.
https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/14/5-fast-facts-the-gender-wage-gap#:~:text=Overall%2C%20women%20are%20not%20paid,Causes.
I looked at that link, and read the entire piece. My original point still stands. When people have kids, moms are more likely to stop working, or reduce working hours to take care of kids, across all education levels. That skews women's averages down because they're not collecting a wage anymore. Meanwhile, men still continue to work the same number of hours or pick up more hours, while still doing less childcare work at home than women do. In the same workplace, there's simply very little evidence of wage discrimination. Are you saying that women who comprise 50% of the workforce who are hiring managers, or payroll are consciously paying other women less, because they're women, and then in a weird act of self-hatred, and because they think women are inferior, decide to pay them less? Logically, does that make any sense to you?? I'll extend an olive branch, and say that predominantly female occupations like social work, nursing, teaching, and healthcare are woefully underpaid, but a lot of women are well aware they'll make less money than an engineer, trucker, carpenter, or electrician, but imo they're attracted to those fields because they find it more personally fulfilling in a healing/helping occupation than working as a auto mechanic, or a software engineer. If those are people's legitimate preferences, then all the more power to them. To quote from the link I'll post below, "the motherhood penalty is now the most significant driver of the gender pay gap".
I'm also not sure why the metric for success is defined as making partner or being CEO. 99.999% of men never hold those jobs either. Those jobs also come with a punishing amount of time at the office, 60-70 hrs/week and working on the weekends isn't uncommon, and losing relationships with your friends, spouse, kids because you run out of hours in the day. I'd say most men who only see the dollar signs and don't see the downsides are pretty dumb for wanting to do those jobs, at the expense of relationships with your family or friends. A lot of women don't want those jobs anyways if it requires them to work 70 hrs/week.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/the-leadership-agenda/the-motherhood-penalty-is-widening-the-pay-gap.html
"My suspicion is many of these childless men have other issues like alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic pain, underemployment/unemployment, criminal convictions/jail time, psychological difficulties, or undiagnosed autism, that make forming relationships especially difficult for them. "
That would explain why they are also not adopting children.
Very interesting piece. I'm particularly fascinated by this:
"Strikingly, the negative impact of entering older age without children seems to be more significant for men. Childless older women have higher net wealth than any other group, and considerably more than childless older men ($174,000 v. $133,000), and better self-reported health than other groups:"
Childless older SINGLE women, at least to me, are most likely making very deliberate, conscious choices that they DONT want children. Among my friends, I see this strong decision to NOT have children, most likely because these women know that the brunt of childcare will fall on them.
On the other hand, many of the men I know who are childless aren't as convicted about their decision to have children or not (again, maybe b/c it comes from a place of privilege that they dont have to worry about taking care of the child).
Is the data also adjusting for single vs in a relationship? What is the effect?
Also, are there generational differences driving the fortunes of childless men of a certain age that may or may not be true of the men growing up today?
If one could find a group of older men who grew up in a less gendered community (where the man’s main role isn’t only to work outside the home) such that their was a higher rate of participation in running the household and where men doing the nurturing was normalised would their fortunes be different?
I’m reminded of the saying “women mourn and men replace” and have seen men in their 70’s and 80’s who are very keen, desperate even, to marry women for companionship yes, but also for someone to take care of them. Childless men also don’t have the option of children to take care of them.
Perhaps I’m over-simplifying in reaching for a possible cause.
The filtering mechanism must have some impact here. Many of the men who end up childless in todays society will tend to be men priced out of the dating market: physically less attractive, less income, less status and thus options basically. Women who end up childless in todays society will tend be women who priced themselves out of the dating market: high income, but hypergamy didn't allow her to "settle for less than what she deserves". Its two very different starting points. The former is more forced, the latter more optional.
Even taking into account that women have higher educational attainment today than men, not every woman is a doctor or a CEO. There are a ton of women that are cashiers or nursing assistants, who would be fine with someone making 40,000-50,000/yr. The pity party of "I don't make enough money, I don't drive a nice enough car, I'm not attractive enough" is really annoying after a while, because if you make an effort to talk to people, pick up some interesting hobbies, take care of yourself and treat women respectfully, you'll very likely find someone. Whether you want to be with them is a different matter, but I find it almost impossible that someone never had anyone in their entire life that they could've dated.
The point here is that the marginal value of the male has dropped. Its not just education attainment of women, its also the obesity epidemic (the 20% who are not fat have inflated value), social media, and even the rise in inequality that hurts medium to low status males. I am not arguing that men will necessarily be alone, only the bottom 30% would suffer that fate, it's that the options they are given are suboptimal. I know many 50K physically fit hard working plumbers, who the only options they have are obese or semi-obese women. Sure, they are not alone, but its not exactly their grandpas options either.
"The point here is that the marginal value of the male has dropped. Its not just education attainment of women, its also the obesity epidemic (the 20% who are not fat have inflated value)"
--- OK so that means 80% of women are fat? They can pair up with fat men, who must also be at a high percentage, no?
" the rise in inequality that hurts medium to low status males. "
--- Assortative mating has been natural law since the dawn of time. Medium to low status males pair up with medium to low status females. That fat girl who works the drive-thru at Taco Bell? The fat guy who works the drive-thru at Burger King across the street will be taking her to see Killers of the Flower Moon tonight.
If we're gonna discuss obesity, the average American man today is 5'9 and 197 lbs. That's firmly in the category of being overweight, and no most guys don't work out enough to have a low enough body fat %, where they can say it's muscle. The average American male GI with millions of American men who joined the service and served in combat during WW2 was 5'8 and between 140-150 lbs. This is one of my pet peeves watching any movie set during WW2 or the 40s with modern day actors, men were much thinner back then if you'd like your film to be period accurate, as were women. My original point was that there are indeed options out there, but men don't take them, which I guess is okay if that's their preference, but it's very hard to ever take them seriously if they complain they can't find anyone. Plumbers weren't dating Marilyn Monroe in the 1950s either, but Dr's, lawyers, film directors, and sports stars like Joe Dimaggio were. This isn't anything new, but many of those guys still found someone, because being married was the normative thing to do.
Right. I think guys like Poncho either don't get out much, or they just selectively choose not to observe what's out here. What's out here is - assortative mating. Walk through any mall, Walmart or go to any large gathering like an amusement part or whatever and what you see is assortative mating. Couples who are more or less the same on the 1-10 looks rating scale. Couples who are in the same socio-economic class and who have more or less the same level of educational achievement.
The issue is porn and social media. Poncho and his type think they "deserve" an instagram "model" type looking woman.
I disagree with the idea behind any rating system and I think it's so flawed and superficial, because there's so many factors that go into whether or not someone wants to be with someone. People date/marry people of the same social class/educational attainment, because they probably have similar life experiences, political beliefs and values. The incel ideology imo is very harmful and self-defeating for young men. Look at Pete Davidson, who leaves people incredulous and bewildered. Well, it turns out that women like someone who's funny, ambitious, easy to talk to, compassionate, and respectful towards women, and has a good relationship with his mom, all of which make women think guy X would be a good long-term partner. Even if Pete was some guy from Staten Island, but never became famous or rich, he probably wouldn't date Kim Kardashian, but he'd still do well dating all types of women who weren't celebrities, who let's be honest only really date each other anyways. But, that's not relevant for 99.999% of the population. Most of these guys imo have autism, or other psychological difficulties, but women want someone who has good social skills and dosen't say rude or inappropriate things, which means these guys are going to struggle in the dating field. But the good news is that you can get better at learning how to socialize with people with practice, even if you have autism or anxiety.
If you're a raving misogynist, don't shower, shave or brush your teeth, play video games all day, or come across as a creep, weirdo, say inappropriate things, or make women feel threatened, women don't want to be around you. Most of these men show a total failure of imagination of seeing the world from a woman's perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who might be autistic, and don't realize that women are nervous about being assaulted, sexually assaulted, or victimized. If you're creepy or only interested in sex, women pick up on that immediately. Women have to learn this to be able to protect themselves, it's a form of self-survival quite literally. Most of these guys could absolutely find someone if they talked to women long enough, so women felt comfortable with them and vetted them, and then they could think about asking them out on a date. But you need to have good social skills to do that.
"But the good news is that you can get better at learning how to socialize with people with practice, even if you have autism or anxiety."
There are plenty of women out here with aspergers, autism and definitely anxiety, OCD, ADD, etc. These weird and socially awkward guys could pair up with women who are the same. I guess neither are meeting each other either online or off? But first it's more important for them to make same-sex friendships.
I dont think we disagree much. Yes, "Plumbers weren't dating Marilyn Monroe in the 1950s either" but a plumber in 1950 could expect a skinny women. I have friends who are mechanics, plumbers, and have a hard time finding just a skinny women without kids. They themselves are not in anyway fat. Although, thinking about my sample size, maybe this is more of an issue in Los Angeles, than in say small town America.
Btw, I am no incel. I personally do date Marilyn Monroe types, but its because I'm comfortably in the upper/middle class. Im just expressing what I see....
I like your description, “didn’t allow her to settle for less than what she deserves.” She “didn’t settle” herself right out of the reproduction chain.
Meh. Reproduction isn’t everything. Why be stuck with an inadequate man?
Glad to see you flagging this topic for follow up. I wonder how risk-taking plays into the outcome disparities between childless men and women. As I understand it, men, on average, are more impulsive and tend to take riskier risks than women. Is this tendency tempered in fathers? Do childless men continue to be riskier and more impulsive in later stages than fathers?
I’m one of those childless gay men, and while I and my partner have deliberately chosen to not pursue fatherhood, I do see how childlessness can contribute to the general loneliness and and purposeless many men feel. I sometimes feel like men have a harder time “self starting” connection and meaning, and having children can be one of those external factors that bring immense value to life.
I'm pretty sure it's worse than than it appears. Those stats don't capture the reality that, after divorce, many fathers & children are cut off from each other.
It's topical here in Australia because of some family law changes just last week: https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/parliament-votes-for-more-fatherless
Very interesting data. Is there any source of how this sex ratio of childless male and female is evolving per year in any country? This would be like the GINI coefficient of inequality. I would bet that this sex ratio is increasing in recent 50 years paralleling the decrease in marriages
If you look at data from population genetics and the structures of individuals' DNA, the proportion of men having children has always been lower than that of women. Indeed, this observation explains why each of us has almost twice as many female as male ancestors. [As odd as that sounds, that is what the data say, a much higher proportion of men never have children.]
It’s hard not to see childless men through an economic and demographic lens. Fertility rates are trending down globally. There are valid reasons to be anxious about bringing children into the world in its current state. We aren’t exempt from the rules of population biology. Anna Louie Sussman recently wrote in the Atlantic how many women report freezing their eggs because they are struggling to find a male co-parent. It isn’t hard to envision a world where being childless is as common as being unmarried. I’m interested in why so many men are failing to thrive whether they have children or not. I believe it’s related to the sheer number of simultaneous inflection points we are at in our economic, political and ecological systems.
"here are valid reasons to be anxious about bringing children into the world in its current state."
There are very few other times in history where it would have been less risky to bring children into the world. That's just an excuse. What no one wants to admit is that, since the baby boomers, our society has revolved around a perpetual youth. And children are a major drag on that.
For some people the perpetual music festival scene may be a reason not to have kids but for other people it's finances and other more serious reasons. We've also got self-aware people out here who know they wouldn't be good parents.
"but for other people it's finances"
No it's not. Most of the people allegedly putting off kids for financial reasons are more well off than any of their ancestors except maybe the last generation or two.
"We've also got self-aware people out here who know they wouldn't be good parents."
Sure, but they're not the majority. Most of the social science research shows that as long as you're not abusive and have an emotional investment in your children they will turn out okay.
People don't "have" to have kids. So some people won't. Big deal.
People don't have to, sure. But if you get significantly below 2.1 children per woman there are major demographic consequences in your future. Things like old age entitlements, a system of care for the elderly, etc. become incredibly difficult if there are more people pulling from the system than putting into it. That's a big deal.
For a time those issues will probably be remedied via immigration. But gradually the human race may just peter out. I don't know who expects it to go on forever.
"Most of the people allegedly putting off kids for financial reasons are more well off than any of their ancestors except maybe the last generation or two."
Yes, that's mainly who I've heard from. They are worried about their financial futures.
What’s interesting regarding the perceived risk of having children is until recently it was common to spread the risks among many children (i.e. just have a lot) and now resourced parents seem to be more concerned with the risk of downward mobility or quality of life for their children. They put the resources they would once put into 3 children into one child if at all.
But even the downward mobility they fear would still give them a standard of living much higher than almost anyone who's ever lived. Economic conditions matter but at the end of the day it's mostly an excuse for wanting to live for short term hedonic pleasure, and as the parent of 2 young children I can tell you that my score in that category has gone down quite a bit.
Late comment, but the biggest problem with that cultural pattern, as you've alluded to is that it's not sustainable. Birthrates don't rise above replacement, if everyone wants to hit the music festival scene, go out to a new restaurant every weekend, and live their lives for their own self-gratification. The groups that have high birthrates even in the midst of modern culture, like the Amish or Orthodox/Hasidic Jews, live apart from the wider culture, but also have different cultural values that think children are a commandment from God, ie be fruitful and multiply, or view children as more valuable than any amount of money or wealth. I actually think they're right in that regard. A hundred dollar bill is indistinguishable from another hundred dollar bill, but a child born of two people, with their genes, traits, quirks, and unique life experiences, is a person so unique that they're interchangeable with anyone else. People valorize money, but forget it's just a medium of exchange.
So true. So many factors at play to be able to reach many conclusions. I think it’s fascinating that the poorest and the richest people I meet often have the most children while my middle/upper middle class friends live in anxiety and scarcity about “falling behind”.
The data bears that out. Fertility is a U shaped curve across the income spectrum, with the middle and upper middle class having the lowest fertility rates.
Perhaps childless men need descendants more in societies where they lack adult friends more than women do? They need some connection to the future...
Is a man considered childless if he has sired none but has stepchildren? Asking for a friend….
Thank you for this. I totally agree with:
"For every one of those there are likely many more who just don’t manage to find the right person or the right time to become a parent. That’s a very different thing. And it looks like it might be especially corrosive for men to end up on a bare branch of their family tree."
Thank you for delving into this topic. Just reading your piece conjures up ideas, hypotheses, anecdotes, recollections--a whole uncharted wilderness of unstructured and unmeasured human experience and behavior. This seems to me to be a consequence of the unaddressed issues in the development of boys in the modern world about which you have a good start--and a long ways to go.
Some possible explainers of the "more advantageous position" of childless older women compared to men (*these are just my intuitive thoughts; I have no research data to point to).
- these childless women will likely include a lot of 'career women' who have positively prioritised career success over motherhood.
- it is my impression that older men feel the need a woman in their life in order to thrive to a much greater extent than older women do
- the childless men will perhaps include many who have just been generally unsuccessful with women (for whatever reason). I have written recently on my own Substack on the huge difference in the intra-sexual fortunes of both sexes (but there is- so I believe - social science research evidence that the divergence between most-and-least-successful is especially great in the case of men) https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
A lot of men view themselves as losers, if they can't attract a woman, or partner. There's no positive script in our culture, for childless or unattached men. The self-concept of how men think about themselves revolves around having a girl, to a greater extent than it does for women having a man.