The Fate of the Traditional Female

[ursidae]

Back when gender war threads were trending on the front page, male members shared numerous times their sentiments about traditional females- the loving wife, nurturing mother and subservient homemaker.

Many women do share those sentiments and have a genuine desire to live that kind of life. How does the that play out nowadays when there's two kinds of women out there: those women who deep down feel compelled to be mothers and wives and the second type of women:
independent women who seek to "live like a man": pursue a career, reach the highest qualifications they can get, and earn a lot of money/gain assets.

There's both kinds of those women in my family, for the purpose of this analysis I'll use two sisters as an example.

The surgeon female of average intelligence but extreme ambition achieves the second highest academic title becomes a respected professional in multiple countries, wealthy and reaches some level of fame. Very ambitious, values money and prestige above all. Never wanted children or a family, had a harsh cruel character and zero empathy. How did things turn out for her in terms of creating a family? Attracts an accomplished and brilliant husband who treats her kindly all her life, is devoted to her, is very loving and puts up with her abuse for half a century. Not out of genuine desire, but because it's "the normal
thing to do", she births two children (grow up with mental illness because she abused them) and 3 grandchildren.

The loving, feminine and prettier sister who is empathic, takes care of the home, her siblings and her old mother, cooks, loves children, dreams of being a wife and treats everyone kindly. Not much ambition career-wise despite decent level of intelligence, gets a bachelor's degree and works as a secretary, an interpreter, a librarian and some other such jobs. How did those housewife ambitions play out ? Decades of being alone, family minded men didn't gravitate to her and she received little to no male love or affection. Finally once she's approaching her late 30s, a man that's 13 years older than her impregnates her but doesn't marry her. Has one child and lives in poverty for many years, struggling to get by if not for the support of her brother who later adopts the child. No romance, no care, no love, no traditional family. Continues to be a loving, nurturing mother, and on top of that takes care of her sick olde mother, her careerist sister's children and grandchildren despite having very limited means. The child that she raised was more mentally healthy.



Many more such examples in my family and among family friends. The main thing in common is:

1. the low empathy, domineering, ambitious career women who don't want children attract many men, get marriage propositions, receive care and love from their devoted husbands for decades despite not being caring themselves and have multiple opportunities to create a family, most of which they turn down, until they finally agree to it reluctantly. They tend to mistreat their children due to their non-existent maternal instincts and as a result the children grow up to develop mental illness

2. the women who are family oriented, feminine, caring, who dream of a traditional marriage do not attract men in their lives, particularly the devoted husband kind. The few men they attract don't want to commit or are abusive. Usually they have such a strong desire to have children that once their fertility is about to drop sharply, they're willing to get pregnant from men who don't want to marry them just so they can experience motherhood. The rest of their life consists of hardship and poverty since they lack the ambition and financial means of the careerist western woman and therefore struggle to handle single motherhood. Despite the poverty and difficult fate, due to their high maternal instincts and loving nature, their children grow up to be well adjusted

 

[Jennifer]

Back when gender war threads were trending on the front page, male members shared numerous times their sentiments about traditional females- the loving wife, nurturing mother and subservient homemaker.

Many women do share those sentiments and have a genuine desire to live that kind of life. How does the that play out nowadays when there's two kinds of women out there: those women who deep down feel compelled to be mothers and wives and the second type of women:
independent women who seek to "live like a man": pursue a career, reach the highest qualifications they can get, and earn a lot of money/gain assets.

There's both kinds of those women in my family, for the purpose of this analysis I'll use two sisters as an example.

The surgeon female of average intelligence but extreme ambition achieves the second highest academic title becomes a respected professional in multiple countries, wealthy and reaches some level of fame. Very ambitious, values money and prestige above all. Never wanted children or a family, had a harsh cruel character and zero empathy. How did things turn out for her in terms of creating a family? Attracts an accomplished and brilliant husband who treats her kindly all her life, is devoted to her, is very loving and puts up with her abuse for half a century. Not out of genuine desire, but because it's "the normal
thing to do", she births two children (grow up with mental illness because she abused them) and 3 grandchildren.

The loving, feminine and prettier sister who is empathic, takes care of the home, her siblings and her old mother, cooks, loves children, dreams of being a wife and treats everyone kindly. Not much ambition career-wise despite decent level of intelligence, gets a bachelor's degree and works as a secretary, an interpreter, a librarian and some other such jobs. How did those housewife ambitions play out ? Decades of being alone, family minded men didn't gravitate to her and she received little to no male love or affection. Finally once she's approaching her late 30s, a man that's 13 years older than her impregnates her but doesn't marry her. Has one child and lives in poverty for many years, struggling to get by if not for the support of her brother who later adopts the child. No romance, no care, no love, no traditional family. Continues to be a loving, nurturing mother, and on top of that takes care of her sick olde mother, her careerist sister's children and grandchildren despite having very limited means. The child that she raised was more mentally healthy.



Many more such examples in my family and among family friends. The main thing in common is:

1. the low empathy ambitious career women who don't want children attract many men, get marriage propositions, receive care and love from their devoted husbands for decades despite not being caring themselves and have multiple opportunities to create a family, most of which they turn down, until they finally agree to it reluctantly. They tend to mistreat their children due to their non-existent maternal instincts and as a result the children grow up to develop mental illness

2. the women who are family oriented, feminine, caring, who dream of a traditional marriage do not attract men in their lives, particularly the devoted husband kind. The few men they attract don't want to commit or are abusive. Usually they have such a strong desire to have children that once their fertility is about to drop sharply, they're willing to get pregnant from men who don't want to marry them just so they can experience motherhood. The rest of their life consists of hardship and poverty since they lack the ambition and financial means of the careerist western woman and therefore struggle to handle single motherhood. Despite the poverty and difficult fate, due to their high maternal instincts and loving nature, their children grow up to be well adjusted

It seems to me that the women (and men) you described got exactly what they thought they deserved and were willing to accept. Speaking from experience, those who are empathic are often taken advantage of because if gone unchecked, they’re far more focused on pleasing others than having their own needs met, usually due to their beliefs surrounding their own self-worth. I was (unintentionally) raised to believe that I needed to earn people’s love and that other people’s happiness meant more than my own so the majority of the males I have a history of attracting have been bullies and/or want “love” on their terms. I come from a long line of givers—mostly females, but also some males—who give/gave to the point of forsaking their own happiness and well-being and this was modeled to me. We can be compelled to be mothers and wives, and fathers and husbands, be compassionate, but that doesn’t mean we have to be doormats. We can be just as loving toward ourselves as we are to others, and I would argue that it benefits not just ourselves but everyone else so it’s not a selfish act. I know women who are compassionate wives and mothers, who have great jobs and devoted husbands who share in the responsibilities, and what they have in common is they know, and live, their worth.

 

[Peatful]

Back when gender war threads were trending on the front page, male members shared numerous times their sentiments about traditional females- the loving wife, nurturing mother and subservient homemaker.

Many women do share those sentiments and have a genuine desire to live that kind of life. How does the that play out nowadays when there's two kinds of women out there: those women who deep down feel compelled to be mothers and wives and the second type of women:
independent women who seek to "live like a man": pursue a career, reach the highest qualifications they can get, and earn a lot of money/gain assets.

There's both kinds of those women in my family, for the purpose of this analysis I'll use two sisters as an example.

The surgeon female of average intelligence but extreme ambition achieves the second highest academic title becomes a respected professional in multiple countries, wealthy and reaches some level of fame. Very ambitious, values money and prestige above all. Never wanted children or a family, had a harsh cruel character and zero empathy. How did things turn out for her in terms of creating a family? Attracts an accomplished and brilliant husband who treats her kindly all her life, is devoted to her, is very loving and puts up with her abuse for half a century. Not out of genuine desire, but because it's "the normal
thing to do", she births two children (grow up with mental illness because she abused them) and 3 grandchildren.

The loving, feminine and prettier sister who is empathic, takes care of the home, her siblings and her old mother, cooks, loves children, dreams of being a wife and treats everyone kindly. Not much ambition career-wise despite decent level of intelligence, gets a bachelor's degree and works as a secretary, an interpreter, a librarian and some other such jobs. How did those housewife ambitions play out ? Decades of being alone, family minded men didn't gravitate to her and she received little to no male love or affection. Finally once she's approaching her late 30s, a man that's 13 years older than her impregnates her but doesn't marry her. Has one child and lives in poverty for many years, struggling to get by if not for the support of her brother who later adopts the child. No romance, no care, no love, no traditional family. Continues to be a loving, nurturing mother, and on top of that takes care of her sick olde mother, her careerist sister's children and grandchildren despite having very limited means. The child that she raised was more mentally healthy.



Many more such examples in my family and among family friends. The main thing in common is:

1. the low empathy, domineering, ambitious career women who don't want children attract many men, get marriage propositions, receive care and love from their devoted husbands for decades despite not being caring themselves and have multiple opportunities to create a family, most of which they turn down, until they finally agree to it reluctantly. They tend to mistreat their children due to their non-existent maternal instincts and as a result the children grow up to develop mental illness

2. the women who are family oriented, feminine, caring, who dream of a traditional marriage do not attract men in their lives, particularly the devoted husband kind. The few men they attract don't want to commit or are abusive. Usually they have such a strong desire to have children that once their fertility is about to drop sharply, they're willing to get pregnant from men who don't want to marry them just so they can experience motherhood. The rest of their life consists of hardship and poverty since they lack the ambition and financial means of the careerist western woman and therefore struggle to handle single motherhood. Despite the poverty and difficult fate, due to their high maternal instincts and loving nature, their children grow up to be well adjusted

Great observations


Before I jump in…


Were you asking anything in particular?

Are you the brother or the third sister?
Sorry if I missed your gender.

 

[chococat]

I’ve been noticing this forever, but I’ve just found the words for this year. it’s really tragic, but I think there’s lots of reasons for it. The first being like @Jennifer said, women who have traditional aspirations can often be people pleasers to the highest degree and attract the nasties of the world because of it. Saying you want to be a stay at home mother and have lots of kids is literally like putting a target on your back that says “financially and emotionally abuse me” unfortunately. There’s a certain segment of men who have always preyed on these types of women and tricked them and wasted their time ( people tend to pray on people pleasers no matter the gender), but now with marriage not being a priority for many men this segment grows larger. The more dominant sister filters all of these men out with her intense energy and high standards. With her focus on herself and her goals she’s unconsciously ruthlessly vetting men ( this is good).

This is an unpopular opinion, but I think a lot of men like the archetype of the domineering career woman more than they let on. subconsciously at least. Notice how a lot of modern dating critiques are about trying to tame career women instead of uplifting traditional, family oriented women ( who’s still comprise the majority in my opinion). It’s probably a matter of wanting to be able to obtain a more high maintenance woman. You said that the domineering sister’s husband takes pride in making her happy; he recognizes it’s kind of a challenge. He likes having to work for his food. The other sister is probably a romantic and comes across as happy to be there. She’s probably aiming to keep other people happy above herself . I think that this is noble, but it turns a lot of people off. With romance I’m learning you really have to look at what people do not what they say they prefer.

It’s just kind of one of those cruel ironies of life. What’s funny is I think that women who advertise as l traditionally, feminine and family oriented are the nice guys of girls at this point. People find desperate and unattractive, and assume that they are trying to garner male attention by performing femininity. I don’t think that modern society is a good place for gentle traditional women at at all. Families are getting more atomized. Wages getting lower. People are less inclined to perform empathy for others. The institution of marriage is not in a good place right now. The majority of people in that childbearing years want to have casual relationships. (These aren’t value statements it’s just what’s going on) . The situation is so dire I would (and do) advise girls to act against these inclinations in a lot of situations.

 

[ursidae]

Great observations


Before I jump in…


Were you asking anything in particular?

Are you the brother or the third sister?
Sorry if I missed your gender.

Im neither of those.

Im the grandchild of the dominant sister

 

[ursidae]

I’ve been noticing this forever, but I’ve just found the words for this year. it’s really tragic, but I think there’s lots of reasons for it. The first being like @Jennifer said, women who have traditional aspirations can often be people pleasers to the highest degree and attract the nasties of the world because of it. Saying you want to be a stay at home mother and have lots of kids is literally like putting a target on your back that says “financially and emotionally abuse me” unfortunately. There’s a certain segment of men who have always preyed on these types of women and tricked them and wasted their time ( people tend to pray on people pleasers no matter the gender), but now with marriage not being a priority for many men this segment grows larger. Your more domineering sister filters all of these men out with her intense energy and high standards. With her focus on herself and her goals she’s unconsciously ruthlessly vetting men ( this is good).

This is an unpopular opinion, but I think a lot of men like the archetype of the domineering career woman more than they let on. subconsciously at least. Notice how a lot of modern dating critiques are about trying to tame career women instead of uplifting traditional, family oriented women ( who’s still comprise the majority in my opinion). It’s probably a matter of wanting to be able to obtain a more high maintenance woman. You said that your domineering sister’s husband takes pride in making her happy; he recognizes it’s kind of a challenge. He likes having to work for his food. your other sister is probably a romantic and comes across as happy to be there. She’s probably aiming to keep other people happy above herself . I think that this is noble, but it turns a lot of people off. With romance I’m learning you really have to look at what people do not what they say they prefer.

It’s just kind of one of those cruel ironies of life. What’s funny is I think that women who advertise as l traditionally, feminine and family oriented are the nice guys of girls at this point. People find desperate and unattractive, and assume that they are trying to garner male attention by performing femininity. I don’t think that modern society is a good place for gentle traditional women at at all. Families are getting more atomized. Wages getting lower. People are less inclined to perform empathy for others. The institution of marriage is not in a good place right now. The majority of people in that childbearing years want to have casual relationships. (These aren’t value statements it’s just what’s going on) . The situation is so dire I would (and do) advise girls to act against these inclinations in a lot of situations.

Im neither of the sisters. They're of the boomer generation, so this kind of thing has been going on for a long time now.

and yes, observation has proven that men like and love dominant, ambitious, independent career women with low maternal instincts and empathy as much as they claim to like the opposite of that

 

[Peatful]

Im neither of those.

Im the grandchild of the dominant sister

Ok

So I’m assuming you’re a male

Which is relevant
Being the offspring

Because my comments were going to focus on the price the child pays for successful alpha females-
Looking at the family unit

Do you want to comment on how that affected you?






For reference
I was the money maker dominant
But
Became the nurturing homemaker

So
I have a lot of personal experience and or observations

 

[chococat]

Ok

So I’m assuming you’re a male

Which is relevant
Being the offspring

Because my comments were going to focus on the price the child pays for successful alpha females-
Looking at the family unit

Do you want to comment on how that affected you?






For reference
I was the money maker dominant
But
Became the nurturing homemaker

So
I have a lot of personal experience and or observations

Did you have any sort of nurturing/maternal instinct prior to having a family ? Or was it something that kicked in afterwards?

 

[mostlylurking]

Back when gender war threads were trending on the front page, male members shared numerous times their sentiments about traditional females- the loving wife, nurturing mother and subservient homemaker.

For a marriage to work, there must be equal footing. There must be healthy give and take. If one partner is ALWAYS "subservient" to the other the marriage will fail. It's supposed to be a "partnership".

I'm reminded of the line in (what was that show's name, anyway?) with Patrick Swazy where he's teaching Baby how to dance. Listen closely to the very first of this clip:

View: https://youtu.be/-sYKI4A3uhc?t=2


The dance can't work if one person is always "subservient" to the other. Each person must define their own "space" and not be overwhelmed by their partner because of "spaghetti arms".

When searching for a mate, the tendency is to glom onto someone who already knows your dance steps, no matter how neurotic/psychotic they may be. Then you just repeat the neurotic dance that you learned as a child because it feels so familiar and "normal" with someone else and nothing ever changes for you.

Suggested reading.

 

[mostlylurking]

and yes, observation has proven that men like and love dominant, ambitious, independent career women with low maternal instincts and empathy as much as they claim to like the opposite of that

They are attracted to the first type because they feel there's no trap set for them; a "needy" "subservient" woman who has poor sense of self worth threatens to entrap them to take care of them.

 

[Peatful]

Did you have any sort of nurturing/maternal instinct prior to having a family ? Or was it something that kicked in afterwards?

Interesting question
Thx

I was nurturing the entire time
But went into healthcare which fulfilled it, as a surrogate, quite nicely

I raised one child while working more so than the other
And
I see the difference

My serotonin was high
And thyroid more low with my first girl
More stressed in general

Of course there are tertiary reasons at play as well
But
For me-
“Choosing” family over career….
Wish I had done it sooner

 

[animalcule]

They are attracted to the first type because they feel there's no trap set for them; a "needy" "subservient" woman who has poor sense of self worth threatens to entrap them to take care of them.

I think the idea here is that there is a subsection of women who *do* need to be taken care of - they don't fare well in the working world, not necessarily because they are unintelligent, but because they lack ambition or the negotiation and career climbing skills that are necessary to carve out a good place in the working world.

It's not a 'trap' (although I read this language everywhere, and accept that some men feel this way, especially as everyone is becoming more and more financially and socially insecure). It's a tradeoff. It's a specific female personality type that, oddly enough, is still promoted as being the genuine, true, or aspirational feminine archetype in certain circles -- even as men increasingly show they don't care for it. Don't want the stereotypically low empathy, demanding, career centered woman in your life? Well... then you get a more passive type of woman who will likely have a stronger desire for kids, and who, yea, is going to need a partner to lean on financially.

 

[animalcule]

I think the takeaway from OP's observations is that ... if society does not set up certain behavioral guardrails, and incentivizes things other than family creation and maintenance... you'll find that men don't actually prefer to be the leaders of their house, with all that it entails. They don't prefer to marry young and start a family. They don't prefer the feminine-but-boring woman who will lean on them more than the independent career woman. She's not exciting. She doesn't challenge him. And especially now that many men have low confidence in themselves, when a woman is willing to passively accept them ... they think less of her. Consciously or unconsciously.

In my experience, which goes very much against the social programming attempts of some "trads," the ambitious women who aim for the top and work hard to get there ... they fare so much better than their passive counterparts. I know a low empathy career woman with a passive doormat husband. She made a lot of money. Eventually had two last-minute kids. And ... they turned out ok. Much more well adjusted than my family. I know another woman who is also very high IQ, high ambition, makes $$, high empathy, expanded family with adopted kids ... that lady is stressed, I can tell. But her kids are vibrant and living great lives. She'll never struggle with poverty, or with the stress of being dependent on an abusive man. She'll never think less of herself because she does nothing that the outside world values. She's squeezing everything she can out of her life.

I wish I had gone harder at my education/career when I was younger. I was saddled with many health issues, and personality deficiencies, that made just getting by hard enough. But I do remember falling into a trad-lite info bubble in my early 20s. And it made it easy for me to justify my passivity and lack of ambition as GOOD things. As desirable traits. Even though all it did was leave me further at the mercy of other people -- and those other people were not so nice. Not so good for me. It was, as they say now, "cope."

Being passive and dependent is STRESSFUL. And it forces you to distort your perceptions in order to reduce the stress. The number of times I felt so unhappy being near some people, but I felt like I couldn't leave, or like I *shouldn't* be unhappy interacting with them. Like I had no standing to feel any negative way about them. Or because asserting myself would have financial repercussions that i was unable to bear, I had to pretend that I was wrong to want to assert myself. And then began the process of self annihilation, little by little, until I was an embarrassing wreck of an anxious people pleaser to some, and a ball of anger to others.

Being passive, low agency, means you have fewer options. It mean you can't say no when you want to say no. It means you will replace your own perceptions and thoughts and feelings with other people's, to keep the peace, or gain acceptance, and then convince yourself you didn't just do that. So many problems and stressors I've experienced could have been dealt with swiftly if only I'd had the agency/ability to simply LEAVE. Leave a living situation. Leave a job. Leave a person. Not just the financial ability, but the mental ability to be able to assess a scenario and, without guilt, decide that it was in my best interest to leave, therefore I must. Many situations would have been minor blips on the radar of my life, instead of mind altering events whose consequences I'm still dealing with today.

For a passive person to flourish, it REQUIRES a softer sort of society, at least in some areas. It requires codes of conduct that won't crush or harden it. It requires good people who don't seek to take advantage of it.

If there was at one time an upside for having a more passive disposition, it seems like that's gone. Or, it seems like you're really rolling the dice in life, hoping you find someone willing to protect it. We're all rolling the dice, whatever we're doing, whoever we are. But I think a woman with agency has better odds at a good life, than a 'meek and mild' traditional, feminine woman.

 

[peatra]

just want to say WOW to this very deep insight @animalcule
my experience is so similar. the social structure is extremely important for creating men capable of leadership and responsibility. right now, nothing is better than anything else (relativism) so whatever they want goes.
I can't fully articulate it (because the mind stops, as you know) but would love to hear anything more you have to say about this.

 

[chococat]

For a passive person to flourish, it REQUIRES a softer sort of society, at least in some areas. It requires codes of conduct that won't crush or harden it. It requires good people who don't seek to take advantage of it.

If there was at one time an upside for having a more passive disposition, it seems like that's gone. Or, it seems like you're really rolling the dice in life, hoping you find someone willing to protect it. We're all rolling the dice, whatever we're doing, whoever we are. But I think a woman with agency has better odds at a good life, than a 'meek and mild' traditional, feminine woman.

I don’t think anyone could’ve said this better! There are very few protections for passive women at this point. It is an ideal that really can’t be sustained. The softer society that these types would need to flourish, with empathy, community support, and (decaying) institutions just doesn’t exist anymore. It’s important to make your own way

 

[chococat]

I wish I had gone harder at my education/career when I was younger. I was saddled with many health issues, and personality deficiencies, that made just getting by hard enough. But I do remember falling into a trad-lite info bubble in my early 20s. And it made it easy for me to justify my passivity and lack of ambition as GOOD things. As desirable traits. Even though all it did was leave me further at the mercy of other people -- and those other people were not so nice. Not so good for me. It was, as they say now, "cope."

This resonates. That sphere barricades women in a burning house. When I went into a depression and lost all my ambitions I got into that space; I legitimately deluded myself into thinking I was becoming more feminine. Took years to see the way out and get myself into school etc

 

[Regina]

I don’t think anyone could’ve said this better! There are very few protections for passive women at this point. It is an ideal that really can’t be sustained. The softer society that these types would need to flourish, with empathy, community support, and (decaying) institutions just doesn’t exist anymore. It’s important to make your own way

IF the culture is like it is for these two caged dogs, THEN the husky is smart and the golden is dumb and deserves no dinner.


View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q_1-LrofW6s

 

[Jennifer]

The dance can't work if one person is always "subservient" to the other.

Beautifully put, mostlylurking. I like the Dirty Dancing reference. Nobody puts Baby in the corner. :)

 

[mostlylurking]

I think the idea here is that there is a subsection of women who *do* need to be taken care of - they don't fare well in the working world, not necessarily because they are unintelligent, but because they lack ambition or the negotiation and career climbing skills that are necessary to carve out a good place in the working world.

I was in that subsection in my first marriage. I'm well aware of this issue. I finally realized, after 10 years of marriage that I was married to a highly functioning psychopath. So I divorced him. And left my friends and family of origin and took my child and moved to another town and started over. And spent 5 years in psychotherapy. Not only was I strongly estrogen dominant during the years of my first marriage, but I also suffered from heavy metal poisoning. It took all I could muster to extricate myself from that disastrous situation but I did it.

I keep a flock of chickens; 19 hens and one rooster (God bless him). You can learn a lot by watching chickens. When a hen becomes fertile and starts laying eggs, she becomes extremely subservient. They squat down and the rooster mounts and does his thing. They also become timid and get picked on by the other hens. They have a very hard time standing up for themselves. It's a hormonal thing. Many women of child bearing years find themselves in this situation. They have a very hard time standing up for themselves and they get mistreated. All they want is to have a family and to be loved. But it is a very vulnerable position to be in and you need your wits about you to be able to choose a mate who will step up to the plate and also not take advantage of you/mistreat you. Discernment is a life saving skill that can be difficult to practice if you are in the process of cranking out eggs.

It's not a 'trap' (although I read this language everywhere, and accept that some men feel this way, especially as everyone is becoming more and more financially and socially insecure). It's a tradeoff. It's a specific female personality type that, oddly enough, is still promoted as being the genuine, true, or aspirational feminine archetype in certain circles -- even as men increasingly show they don't care for it. Don't want the stereotypically low empathy, demanding, career centered woman in your life? Well... then you get a more passive type of woman who will likely have a stronger desire for kids, and who, yea, is going to need a partner to lean on financially.

I think that the "low empathy, demanding, career centered woman" has been brainwashed and has shut down her empathetic side in order to survive. Weak people get taken advantage of in the professional world. "It's just business".

I'm all for a more traditional concept of marriage with the woman being able to rely on her husband and be loved, cherished, and protected by him. The Powers that Be have done a number on people's heads by turning this healthy normal relationship upside down by promoting the "professional" career woman who can make it solo. Their goal is to destroy the family unit so the State can get their mitts on the children at an early age. Or, better yet, just do away with children altogether, for the sake of the planet.

 

[ursidae]

It's a hormonal thing. Many women of child bearing years find themselves in this situation. They have a very hard time standing up for themselves and they get mistreated. All they want is to have a family and to be loved. But it is a very vulnerable position to be in and you need your wits about you to be able to choose a mate who will step up to the plate and also not take advantage of you/mistreat you.

I think when women are like this men are not attracted to them. Men, especially the family oriented ones, seem to have strong attraction and devotion to women who don't really want to have a family or reciprocate their love. Something about the desire to be loved and have a family is off putting to men energetically. Also, when people have a singular desire like that, it evades them. Something about how the universe works: the things you desire run away from you, while the things you don't care about are given freely/chase after you