Please explain how this isn’t a bigoted point of view
Ms. Kearney, for example, acknowledges that improving men’s economic position, especially men without college degrees, is an important step toward making them more attractive partners.
Well, considering dating takes at least 2 people (depending on how you live your life, and yes non-monagamy and polyamory are vaild), asking only one group is incredibly biased.
An article that wonders why people aren’t getting married says they went out and only asked one side what the problem was. 🤔
Doesn’t even seem balanced…
Edit: as a romance favourable aroace, the dating world was a nightmare, even if you do everything “right”. Which is why I no longer look to find companionship.
Do better or not, there are garbage people in all genders and the prevailing “men bad” when it comes to dating is just as toxic as what the men are doing.
The article also doesn’t suggest any possible solutions.
Well, maybe they are looking in the wrong place. Or they just have unobtainable standards.
The article treats it like a onesided issue, which when you are dealing with people, it’s not. There isn’t an easy way of dealing with this issue and the ‘men bad’ vibe this article gives off isn’t adding to the solution. It doesn’t offer solutions, suggestions or even a second viewpoint.
Disney would have the list. They decanonised all but the movies and other properties they got with lucasfilms. They have expanded the list, but I haven’t looked at it.
if men aren’t meeting women’s standards, then women should either be content to be single, hook up with other women, or reexamine how important romantic relationships are for them.
I take issue with the part that is bold and italisied. Not sure what you are saying, but it seems like a gross misunderstanding how people work.
Maybe we stop with top down one size fits all solutions to human interaction? The article is a good example of part of the problem, as it seems to exonerate one group while putting all the onus for change on the other. Mainly by it having essentially a single position from all them people that the author uses as sources and references and the narrow scope that they actually show.