Shortage of eligible men has left women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say

Article here. Excerpt:

'A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.

The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.

Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.

The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.

Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.'

up
40 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Arghh, it's a CATASTROPHE!!

Ever notice it's only a problem if it affects women? Male educational attainment plummets as boys are practically persecuted by unis, and it's an issue only bc it seems now to be affecting women negatively.

Never mind how it affects men.

And heaven forbid a LADY consider marrying BENEATH her station! Men have been doing so for millenia. Guess old habits die hard.

No mention of men avoiding marriage, too. That can't POSSIBLY be a factor bc we all know, men invented marriage specifically to oppress women and control them. Right.

So why do so many women still seem to want it even if there is ZERO need for them to consider it?

I am h@ving serious trouble feeling much sympathy for the world's romantically-challenged, unmarried, not-so-impoverished white collar women. They are their own source of disaffection. As a comedian I once head pointed out, in the realm of mating, men are limited by our opportunities, women by their tastes. Very astute observation culled from human psychology, among other sources. In this case, les femmes seem principally limited by their tastes. And for that they have only themselves to blame.

up
5 users have voted.
I like this

Who's problem?

Absolutely right.
The bias in these articles and in the professional and academic culture behind the fertility industry is so extreme, obvious and entrenched. The article and the academic dialogue is dominated by the needs of women, the opinions of women and how men are not fulfilling those needs.
Nowhere do the authors investigate why men are withdrawing from education, marriage and family. Nowhere have the authors asked men what they think or feel about these trend. Men's motives are assumed from the opinions of women, and are consistent with the same feminist dialogue that has alienated men and boys from education, marriage and family. The dialogue that excludes men and denies men's humanity. As expected, this kind of feminist dialogue characterises men as shallow, selfish, fearful and childish.
So long as gender studies in academia remain dominated by third wave feminist misandry, no male voices will be heard, and the trends identified will continue.

up
5 users have voted.
I like this

Except ...

"Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first."

... except, it doesn't "bust the myth" at all, but only reinforces it. It speaks of a dearth of "educated" men, not of men generally. Haven't they been telling us all these years that the objective of feminism is to achieve equality/parity with men? Well, for a long time men have been perfectly willing to marry women less educated than themselves, but these women don't even consider marriage to a less-educated man an option. (And perhaps that's just as well, because the poor dudes married to such women would constantly be belittled and reminded of her "superiority.")

I recall when it first hit the media that female college enrollments were far outpacing males. A few prominent feminists reacted to the handwringing over the gender imbalance with comments like: "Well, no one was concerned when far more men than women were in college, so why should we be worried about this?" It should be blindingly obvious (but never seems to be to feminists) that when more men were in college, the general expectation was that men would be the primary--if not the sole--breadwinners. Now that women are the majority in higher education enrollments, does that mean we can expect that they will willingly be primary breadwinners, and that there will be a lot of househusbands? Of course not. Many men pursue lucrative careers in order better to support wives and families. Can the same be said of high-power career women?

up
4 users have voted.
I like this

Frozen eggs

The perfect metaphor for the benefits of feminism.

Maybe they can develop a device that lets women keep their frozen eggs on their mantle piece to remind them of the benefits of a feminist life. Or they can take pictures of them and put them in a scrap book.

Feminists claim marriage is how men oppress women. In truth, it's how women oppress men. It's take a lot more shine to get a man to marry than to get a woman to marry. And marriage ain't looking all that shiny for men nowadays.

But, hey, she's got her frozen eggs. That should be enough for any woman, except maybe a fish and a bicycle.

up
6 users have voted.
I like this

Gettin' worse

The Salvation Army, of all entities, is itself starting to lose it. The trigger in this case is the absolutely terrifying notion that indeed, men may one day soon no longer need women to get their psycho-sexual needs met. They are positing the utterly ludicrous argument that sexbots are liable to increase the demand for human sex workers which as everyone knows, couldn't possibly be in the trick-turning business voluntarily but each one of them must be trafficked, forced into prostitution.

This is like saying that as the number of police officers assigned to a neighborhood goes up, criminals will in fact be more attracted to committing crimes in it. Or perhaps it's more like saying that the more pencils a school has in it, the more pens it will in fact want. That indeed, the presence of pencils *causes* an increase in demand for pens.

No.

The real fear is that *gasp*, men may soon no longer need to allow themselves to be sextorted by women. Large portions of women's personal economies and indeed the economy at large are driven by the timeless fact that women seek compensation (??) from men in exchange for sex. It need not always be material compensation, but that is common. Anthropologists and animal behaviorists have noticed that in general, the more complex and challenging are the needs of a species' offspring, the more likely that species is to have males be a part of the post-conceptive reproductive equation. To the degree that the offspring's needs are greater, the demands on the male are greater. So, they argue, it is reasonable for women to expect sometimes rather high "compensation" from men in exchange for sex. Well I suppose if it were true that women did not have modern, very reliable birth control methods at their disposal, *and* if most sexual encounters with men resulted in pregnancy, then it'd be justified. But neither of these things is true. Especially now that women are doing as well as men, if not better, in the job market, and no longer barred from professional/higher-paying work due to accepted social convention, there really is no excuse left for female sextortion. But alas, they persist. Old habits die hard.

Sexbots will offer a pay-once option for men. Ongoing maintenance costs will be there but all in all, sexbots will be MUCH cheaper than human women and probably a fair bit more sexually gratifying at least in some ways. If overall a sexbot is only about 70% convincing as a woman, that will be sufficient when men are faced with the economics of the decision: $30k paid once for a sexbot or $500,000 or more paid over many years for the company of human women, in addition to the many unquantified costs that are often taken as given: Dealing with melt-downs, periods of time when she isn't "in the mood", verbal and emotional abuse, shaming, female judgments, and of course, modern woman misandry. I predict most men will gladly take that deal. And certain people know it, like this SA lady. And it scares them $hitless, so they make wild-eyed, nonsensical accusations like these.

My response? The planet has over 8 billion people on it. We could use fewer women pumping out more of us. As for the women factor, well ladies, they are working on male sexbots, too. He may not be able to pay you for sex, but at least you will no longer need to fear he will try to coerce you ruthlessly into that patriarchal oppressive institution know as marriage, nor can he impregnate you so you need fear not the oppression of child-birthing.

Heck, it's a win-win. Stop complaining.

up
8 users have voted.
I like this

The male sex bots would end up going on strike, too!

The male sex bots would just end up going on strike too, after dealing with feminist inspired women.

up
7 users have voted.
I like this

LOL

Maybe once the AI got good enough. But machines are machines. They can be programmed to put up with even feminist abusiveness.

up
6 users have voted.
I like this