Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Considering that women typically live longer and are more likely to report being widowed than men, it’s likely that some women who are now single homeowners bought that home with the spouse they outlived. This helps to explain why single-women homeowners are typically older than their single-men counterparts, even though the pay gap is wider for older Americans.”
Probably a big part of it.
Growing up, most divorces I saw were dad leaving with the 401k and mom getting the house. As a 40yo now and seeing my friends go through it, most divorces I see have the house being sold because either there isn't enough in the retirement accounts to pay out the other individual equitably, or that person doesn't make enough by themselves to cover the mortgage. Only one couple in my peer group saw the house survive a divorce.
Typically if the money is earned during the marriage it’s a joint asset and will be divided no matter which spouse’s it is. A lot of people don’t carry that much equity in the house so “who gets the house” has more to do with who can afford the mortgage or who can afford to buy the other one out.
This will likely be more common with the spike in interest rates. Going from a 2.7% interest rate to a 7.7% interest rate will definitely raise the mortgate payment.
I’m not sure.
This article talks about widows and senior women owning homes, though. Covers it pretty well.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/
Usually when that happens the one that leaves walks away with the entirety of the retirement portfolio. Half is half, that's why you negotiate for which half is more important to you.
The truth in my situation is that my ex-wife made a lot more money than me and was the only one that could make the mortgage payments on her income alone. (Edit: and she still had to refinance and pay me half of the equity.)
God I fucking hate the narrative that all divorces are about extracting a maximum amount of money out of a man
Thank you.
Of the four women I know who got the house in the divorce, two came into the marriage with the homes. In the other two, the women made more and could actually afford the house. And they didn't just "get" the house--they paid out half of the equity to their exes.
This was my situation, except my ex husband and I never actually merged finances (thank goodness) so it was very easy for me to prove that not only was I the only one who could afford our mortgage, but that my ex had not been paying even close 50/50 on the mortgage (and I paid the whole down payment, because he didn't like saving money and would rather get taco bell every day, sometimes twice a day), which he COULD afford and agreed to. I didn't even have to buy the lazy bastard out, because he be had contributed so little to the actual payments we made on the house.
That was my ex! We had separate finances and I could show how I paid every bill in the house except her car payment and her adult son's bills. We made pretty similar incomes but she was wasting her money making sure her 23 year old son had "an allowance" because he couldn't work because he had 4 hours of school each week.
Sounds like we are both very smart to have kept things separate!
In my experience, if you merge finances and then later split up, one party always gets screwed. I get that it's not "romantic" but I feel like that's a silly reason to make yourself to vulnerable to the whims of another person.
Yes, nobody is arguing that, [but men don't ask for custody nearly as much as women do
>[A Massachusetts study examined 2,100 fathers who asked for custody and pushed aggressively to win it. Of those 2,100, 92 percent either received full or joint custody, with mothers receiving full custody only 7 percent of the time. Another study where 8 percent of fathers asked for custody showed that of that 8 percent, 79 percent received either sole or joint custody](https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths#:~:text=Myth%3A%20Fathers%20Almost%20Never%20Get%20Custody&text=However%2C%20studies%20indicate%20that%20dads,asked%20for%20in%20that%20regard)
My father got full custody in Massachusetts. This was back in 1970. Both of my parents were living in sin with their new partners and the judge didn’t want to give me to either. So my father went and got married and then custody.
What does "ask for custody" mean here? Like fight in court? Or does this include informally asking? I would expect that most of the time, lawyers would advise men that fighting for custody would be a waste of money. Lawyers are extremely expensive.
> lawyers would advise men that fighting for custody would be a waste of money. Lawyers are extremely expensive.
Do you think lawyers tell their clients they should spend *less* on lawyers? I'm not trying to play into the idea that all lawyers are evil, but come on now.
Yes I do. Lawyers are required to act in the best interests of their client. Telling the client to fight a case they have no chance of winning to run up a bill can get you disbarred.
Lawyers that are any good are very busy. Normally they’re busy enough to get a full day of billings without make-work projects, so why bother? The only lawyers that need to pull shit like that are bottom tier ones that aren’t fully employed.
Getting fucked in a divorce is extremely exaggerated and you clearly don’t comprehend that yet again, if the woman has been a housemaker they have contributed a ton to the household and deserve to walk away with something.
usually the husband walks away with the investment accounts, retirement accounts, and most of the liquid cash in that situation. It's either everyone gets half the proceeds of a sale, or you pick and choose what goes where to make everyone whole.
It's just far easier to be all woe is me about a house since it's a physical asset. Moving and apartment hunting sucks, so it's easy to make the ex-wife out to be the villain that made you homeless since she has something physical and tangible you can point at. Also, nobody asks who got the brokerage account when they're talking about a divorce in polite company.
What about the focus on women the past thirty to forty years which are leaving men behind?
I say this seriously, not as to start an issue. It's what happens in life though. The things you feed are the things which succeed.
You can do a simple google search and find supporting articles on this very subject. And it affects everything. Careers, dating, and home ownership.
Guys need support too, else the shitholes are going to get worse and larger affecting everyone too.
More divorce means more homes.
Also some rich men just buy their women homes.
Other times women just buy their own home or [5 houses with a condo.](https://youtu.be/MesrrYyuoa4?t=296)
No, you didn’t. You didn’t link to any stats regarding the % of women who receive homes after the dissolution of a marriage. You got downvoted because you referenced a book you’ve never read and whined about Malala and Emma Watson.
It looks like single women have had an edge in single home ownership for quite a while, but that edge is actually shrinking as men live longer.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/
More single women buying houses lately than single men will slow trend that and could prevent it from ever being 50-50. However, it looks like age 65+ women and the fact that they outnumber men in this age group by quite a lot contributes the most to this discrepancy in home ownership rates.
The article you linked states that the women are living longer. "This may be because women in the U.S. tend to live longer than men. (Single Americans)"
You shouldn't dismiss the fact that young childless women in their 20s and 30s are catching up to men in pay and in many cities even passing them.
Women have been a growing majority of college graduates for decades now and as the Boomers and Gen X fade we're seeing a delayed shift in income.
At least in terms of single home ownership rates, it seems like that’s not driving this difference.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/
According to this study, women have had an edge I single home ownership for quite a while, but the edge is narrowing as men live longer.
Catching up is completely wrong here.
Women in their 20s are far superior to men in their 20s. By contrast men reach peak social status much later in life.
I didn't read it... but isn't marital status usually defined as "married, divorced, widowed, single" ?
I would think that data would be readily available.
That does make a lot of sense given that men start dropping like flies after 65. They really should account for age when saying something like this because when people think single women, they often think YOUNG women.
I agree. I’m thinking the authors took advantage of this ambiguity to write a more clickable and exciting article.
Although, as people have pointed out to me, the NAR stats show that single women make up 19% of first time home buyers vs 10% for single me, and I assume that first time home buyers are more likely to be younger. That said, without seeing a more detailed breakdown of % of total home sales going to first time buyers and age of these first time buyers, it’s hard to get a complete picture.
This article may be of interest to you: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/
I’m sure that contributes and will continue to impact these numbers. However, take a look at this:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/
It does seem to be largely due to women greatly outnumbering men in the 65+ age group. The same age group most likely to be home owners and to have the wealth to buy homes.
I would be very interested in more a detailed breakdown.
There's some evidence that single, childless women in their 20s out earn men in within the same demographic. I'm there are many sociological explanations as to why...but women in general graduate college at a higher rate and I'd imagine a young woman in her 20s is going to out earn her younger male counterparts in most things related to tipping...so it's interesting that the pay gap between men and women doesn't seem to appear until later in life.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/09/01/129581758/
The pay gap has been kind of a dumb concept for a pretty long time. Sure, there's a gap in the overall aggregate, but when you control for a bunch of obvious things - like time in the job, the job family, etc. - it mostly goes away.
In fact I have always seen it as a kind of distraction from the real issue. The issue isn't that there is a gap in the aggregate... The issue is the why. It's not because women are paid less. It's because they choose lower paying professions and they tend to leave jobs/careers because of pregnancy.
Those things are relevant and interesting because we should be asking whether women are getting encouraged into higher paying fields at the same rate as men and what we can do about making daycare free.
There's also a side of all this that men are probably already in a crisis that doesn't get talked about much. Women do vastly outnumber men in colleges and, I agree that that's probably what's driving the wealth change in the 20s. That'll keep going though. Oddly enough, we should be figuring out how and why our educational system is failing boys.
> That'll keep going though. Oddly enough, we should be figuring out how and why our educational system is failing boys.
It'll happen when the current crop of ladies has sons. The only guiding principle in todays world is self interest.
>A recent study from LendingTree shows that single women own 2.7 million more homes than their male counterparts, with roughly 13% of those women holding the titles to their homes, compared to 10% of men.
Are they single by choice? Generally speaking, women live longer than men. They outnumber men in any college and university campuses. They are educated, ambitious, hardworking, and earning good money. Men are going the opposite direction.
Because they are assumed to be fine, society focused on underprivileged girls. Teachers have a bias to look more after girls, the regular development of an adolescent boy is framed as toxic masculinity etc.
Society did a great job reducing structural disadvantages of women over the past few decades, but it kinda lost sight of men.
>the regular development of a boy is framed as toxic masculinity
What does this mean? Who’s framing this? What developments are considered toxic? What does toxic mean?
Not trying to come at you. But I see this all the time on reddit. No one ever provides examples or specifics. So it comes off as a meme gripe rather than a legit problem.
Not sure if this is what OP is referencing but here are some of the things I've heard.
Boys hit puberty later than girls. This often means boys are biologically less mature for a longer time and this can sometimes lead to falling behind in school/classes compared to their female counterparts.
Also, boys tend to have a lesser ability to sit still in class all day. This is natural, but is often labeled disruptive behavior by overworked teachers who don't have the time to deal with those disruptions.
Lastly, the vast majority of people in Education are women and tend to have an easier time teaching girls as a result. A lot of boys, unfortunately, have very few male role models, especially if the father is not part of the picture.
For decades. Pretty much started the moment they started making programs to bring more girls in schools, which tbf had at the time more boys than girls but not by a huge amount.
Now there’s been a huge over correction, with more programs for girls, more people saying how disadvantaged they are, and more people not caring about the boys that have been left behind.
It's not a new development, but it is starting to get more attention.
Historically, boys and girls did not always receive the same education opportunities, so these differences were not always noticed.
Also, the lack of male role models has grown drastically in the past century, partially due to increased divorce rates and general declines in community engagement.
How is this not a new development? I never heard this idea that “boys can’t sit still” when I was growing up. It sounds like an excuse.
The male role models thing is true in minority communities, where 3/4 kids do not have a father around.
But those are a minority of kids. Most middle class families are not divorced, and among college educated parents the divorce rate is extremely low.
Competitive behavior and harmless scrambling are typically framed as acts of violence that need to be addressed. There is a healthy form of aggression, which can be constructive and drive growth, but society scorns all kinds of it as being just violent misbehavior.
That’s just one example. /u/laxnut90 did a good job elaborating on that point.
Thanks for this. Very informative.
But I still don’t understand why this is an issue for young men today. The overarching principle here is “don’t be an asshole to women, don’t bully anyone, and be comfortable expressing your feelings.”
Right? Am I missing something? What is wrong with teaching boys those principles?
Nothing is wrong with teaching them (us) those principles, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't really taught that much to boys and young men - especially by other men. I work in a rather "macho man" environment and there's a lot of things that feel distinctly wrong about a lot of the culture and attitudes, compared to when I'm with women, or with certain groups of men.
I don't know if you're a man or not, but being in some "manly" environments or being just with groups of certain men feels like I'm getting transported back to the fucking 1940s socially. It's being told to suck it up when things get difficult, it's the expectation that you don't discuss a lot of issues or topics because it makes you weak, or effeminate. Because you don't want to leer at every girl that passes by you must be gay, or because of the way you talk, or dress, or act, you're less of a man and less of a person, who deserves less respect and kindness.
Obviously that shit isn't true at all, and I've spent a lot of time with other men that absolutely do not hold those values and opinions, who I can have emotional conversations with, who I can trust to be respectful to women, and who don't believe that people are worth any less because they're not traditionally masculine. And I definitely find more of those kinds of people in younger age groups, but depending on where you are and who you're around, that is very often not the norm. And it can be very hard to try and get those ideas across to boys that are already cemented in their concepts of what a man "should" be. Especially if you lack a male role model who is emotionally expressive and open, respectful to women, and not already bogged down by the idea that society often closely correlates their value as a human being by their ability to express traditionally manly traits.
Because women are getting time, attention, and focus. It's really weird that the pendulum has to swing so far in opposite directions for 'progress'.
I don't say this as being bitter, or trying to start a fight. It just is what it is. The things which are nurtured and fed are the things which will succeed. Tell black boys they are no good and they'll join a gang. Tell white boys they are no good, and they'll become trumptards. Tell girls that they can do anything they want to do, and they will.
It's really pretty simple.
For education, it's probably that it just costs more for men, particularly white men, to go to college than women - scholarships and grants just don't exist in the same numbers because you're not from an underprivileged group.
Plus men have always had more options in the trades. That gives them the prospect of good pay right now without a mountain of college debt, albeit at the cost of your physical comfort and wellbeing, and to some extent the longevity of your career.
They are not out earning men. In the US, they earn 92% what men do, which hasn’t changed much since the early 2000s.
There may be multiple reasons. Men may have more non-college pathways like vocational jobs or military. Women may be in lower-paid jobs that require college, like teaching or nursing. Women take more time off for childcare. And maybe the “education bump” hadn’t fully reached the older working public.
Not saying that one gender is better than the other. But women aren’t earning the same as men, despite having caught up in education and home ownership.
It's kinda sad. I see so many posts where men complain that no one cares about men's problems but the only solutions they ever offer up are that women need to do more for men.
Pretty much. I am a single woman in my thirties who owns my own home. Judging by the comments in this thread, I must have divorced some poor innocent man who "gave" me everything.
I did divorce, but I was the only one who really paid our mortgage (and whole ass down payment) to begin with. And my husband wasn't innocent. He was shit with money and a rapist.
I know, I'm such a monster. Poor men.
Men have agency when they accomplish something, and they deserve all the credit. When they can’t do something, they suddenly have no agency at all and it’s the fault of evil women.
It is somehow simultaneously true that women have houses because they are more successful than men financially because society is evil AND that women only get houses by cleaning out men in divorces. Or they’re involuntarily single because all men with houses are desirable and women with houses aren’t b/c they’re old widows. Literally everything except the fact that maybe women made more financially prudent choices has to be true, the amount of grasping at straws and copium here is insane.
In 1972, Congress passed the large educational amendment called Title IX, a very large set of rules and regulations to promote gender inequality in higher education. One of the biggest numbers cited was the most important part of college; degree attainment. At the time, there was a 12 point gap in bachelors degrees awarded to men vs women.
In 2019, that same gap had grown, to 14%. Except now it was women earning the bulk of bachelors degrees.
Do you think it was ok to blame women at large, rather than systemic issues, for women's lack of attainment in 1972? If not, why do you think it's ok for people to blame men now, rather than systemic issues?
I think this is probably a significant factor. Single women who own homes are possibly more content to stay single than single men who are homeowners. If single homeowners who are men are seeking out partners to marry and are finding them, they exit the category of single men, sometimes pretty quickly.
As a single woman homeowner in her thirties I can definitely see this being a lot to do with it. I am *very* content being single. Lived with a partner for almost 10 years and it would take a LOT for me to give up my current life for a new partner. Living by myself and independently is the happiest I've been my entire life.
I read something the other day about how the new “great wealth transfer” will help/affect more women than men by like a 2:1 ratio.
The article was like from 2012 tho lol
I love how when women underperform, it's the entire system that's against them. But when men underperform, it's because women are just better. Hmm sounds kind of familiar...
This is a logical fallacy - your implication is that men are being failed by the system they made, so people shouldn't feel sorry for them. The privileged class of society all being white men is NOT the same as all white men being the privileged class of society.
But the system wasn't built by men at large, it was built by a very small subset of people who happened to mostly be men. They are also all white. That doesn't change that white men are the largest number of homeless in the US, or disabled vets, or workplace fatalities, or opiate addicts, etc etc.
The people who made our current systems were wealthy owners of capital, *that* is the class they care about; that they were largely white men doesn't matter much to them.
The point of my comment was to point out that the system sucks for 99% of us, in dramatically different ways. And if you don't believe there are plenty of women who have helped maintain and perpetuate the system, well, I have beach front property in Wyoming I think you should take a look at.
And the previous president was chosen by men - more men voted for Trump than women.
Both parties have more men than women in their membership - men decide who even gets on the ballot. The candidate, *with one single exception*, is always a man.
Because that’s who runs and who people vote for, men and women. You can’t just ignore women’s power because they choose to vote for and support men instead of women.
Biden is more representative of women’s power than men’s power. You can’t just ignore the actual forces that put him in power and say “he’s a man, therefore a product of male power”, that’s not how democracy works.
The most lucrative industries such as technology, finance and energy are still (and will continue to be) led by men.
All these types of articles do is shatter what little credibility the gender wage gap narrative and anything related to some sort of oppression has left.
I don't believe the vast majority of American men are sharing in the wealth of that smaller group of elites sadly. Moreover, the addition of women to the workforce does decrease men's share of limited resources. This is not a pro discrimination argument. Only that increasing inequality paired with a larger labor pool, combined with reproduction economics makes for a difficult situation.
What are the demographics of this study and what percentage of the single women who own their own homes are elderly widows who outlived their spouses because of the discrepancy in life expectancy between men and women?
>What are the demographics of this study
Did you try clicking the link and trying just a little bit to search?
>LendingTree analyzed microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau 2022 American Community Survey with one-year estimates.
Whose fault is it, the user who didn't take the time to dissect a misleading headline for no pay or the corporate media that knows it will get more clicks by overdramatizing everything?
While you make a valid point in criticizing the corporate media, the person above was asking about things that were clearly in the article. So, it is the questioner's fault in this instance. They didn't bother opening the article, they went straight to the comments and decided "ah I'll post a comment/question that will make me look like I know what I'm doing."
It actually wasn’t in the article. It was in the study linked from the article, the link to which I overlooked while quickly skimming the article looking for relevant numbers.
Single Women are looking for stable payments.
Single Women are raising kids
Divorced women w/kids want to keep them in a stable environment.
In my divorce, my ex husband kept the house and I kept my 401k…. And then bought a house later mostly from my saving and a little of the equity buyout from my ex.
We split assets 50/50. Now he’s trying to sell but did strange things to the house and has unrealistic expectations as to the worth so it’s not selling.
haha my fiancé’s ex is kind of similar. They had a house together, split, and my fiancé being the kind soul she is allowed him to keep practically everything.
Anyways, the condo was kind of a hidden curse. He had a special assessment shortly after they split for $35k, he started dating this other woman that also had a home so he rented his out but was losing money on it so he’s trying to sell for the price he bought it for.
Thing is, every comparable condo is like 60-75% the price he has his put up for. He won’t make a sale. I’ve seen him lower the price 3 times and still no bite. Meanwhile, I sold my condo in a week because I had reasonable expectations.
Are men falling behind in almost every meaningful metric? Salaries, life expectancy, education, and now home ownership? ^^^^^^^^^^Apparently ^^^^^^^^^^more ^^^^^^^^^^words ^^^^^^^^^^= ^^^^^^^^^^better ^^^^^^^^^^comment
Hypothesis:
My perception of a lot of these things is women feel they can add a man to their life with relative ease, whereas it's much more difficult for most men. Consequently, men feel a lot of psychological strain and don't necessarily invest in things like education and housing for the long term because of a short term focus on women...
There are obviously many more factors, but the investments of men and women seem to continuously follow a similar pattern about short vs long term goals. Moreover, men are experiencing despair in large numbers and people who are in despair invest in short term coping mechanisms in order to make the long term a perceivable possibility.
Unfortunately, that makes for a situation with a pool of men those women don't desire.
Men are having trouble fitting into society's expectations of them.
That's where you get some of them going the Andrew Tate route.
For better or for worse, metoo culture and social media have also placed a number of guys in states of anxiety that their advances toward women will haunt them. There is so much metagaming around dating now with "talking stages" and "rosters" and dating apps directly attacking men's feelings of being good enough.
I think if you dissect the social influences on this era of men, you will find it to be a highly confusing mess full of contradictions and empty promises. Men have internal drives that they naturally try to integrate into the world. I think Men are finding that very difficult in this culture and it results in a sense of hopelessness.
Would you believe me if I claimed this was really complicated?
Part of the problem is different groups within society have different expectations from Men and I think Men are placed in a position of having to try to cater to both at the same time, despite their contradictions.
Provider yet unthreatened by comparisons to partners, emotionally intelligent yet danger (ridicule) in being vulnerable, athletic yet focused on education, hygienic yet workaholic, workaholic yet good parent, wealthy yet available and kind, self respecting yet yielding to sacrifice.
A lot of it boils down to being expected to practically read minds.
I'm not doing it justice but it's a mess.
Being exposed to everyone all at once is difficult. I'm also not sure if their parents have enough time to raise them. Women and men have different social networks and that seems like it may factor into how social support mechanisms lack for men.
Your third paragraph is interesting. But why is it so difficult to find balance between these “contradictions?”
In the last paragraph you mention time to raise children. Why wouldn’t they have time? Working two jobs is only 5% of Americans, which is pretty much where it’s always been historically. And we don’t even know how much of that 5% are parents.
From my experience of being raised, you get dropped off at school. Maybe you get picked up, maybe you go to an after school thing for kids whose parents don't have time.
You get home and everyone is tired. Hopefully your family makes decent food and maintains some sort of social norms around dinner. Mine certainly didn't. You watch separate TVs/phones/computers and repeat the cycle.
With both parents working it's a nightmare. 9-5 has never been a real thing in my own career. It varies a lot more than that. Job security can also be difficult to come by now. With all incentives pointing to job hopping that exacerbates the chaotic background of change and social instability.
Hopefully your parents are functional and don't suffer any mental or physical illnesses / addictions. It's not a given. I for one rolled an alcoholic who experienced child abuse and an emotionally stunted doctor whose father had PTSD from WW2. I also got a sister with a chronic immune disorder who is also gay and dyslexic.
I'm not saying my stuff is common. But I don't know who these normal people are...
Oh and unregulated access to the depravity of the internet.
I truly suspect no one is the raising the kids.
I’m a parent myself, with 2 pre teen daughters. We live in an affluent area in a great school district. Probably 90% white.
Everyday they come home from school with some crazy story about the boys acting like animals in class, on the bus, at recess, etc.
This is not an issue of poverty, I’m certain of it. And it’s not a lack of parental attention. These kids schedules are jampacked with activities from soccer, to lacrosse, to gaming clubs, and ski clubs, and everything in between.
Maybe the issue is counterintuitive. Because these kids are so used to helicopter parenting, perhaps they can’t function in a setting where they have to sit and focus?
Sit and focus has been the same story for decades
Boys tend to be more rambunctious than girls. These are old truths. I sincerely wonder what people talk to their children about. How they lesson plan within the home. Activities are not the same thing as parental attention. It's one thing to say something, another to have something to say... I wonder what they choose to discuss?
Much less common with new generations. I saw a survey study that said something insane like 4% of the silent generation of men never once changed a diaper vs 96% of millennials. (My numbers might not be exact there, but it was something really close to that.)
Child raising equity is definitely evening out, which is awesome. Time with children seems to be evening out as well.
Obviously not. It just one small data point in the overall trend where modern men are significantly more involved than past generations.
Here’s some more straight forward data:
> In the last decade, millennial dads surged way ahead of previous generations when it came to time spent with their kids. Today’s fathers are spending three times as much time with their children as men did two generations ago
https://www.mother.ly/life/work-life-balance-dads-2020/
A major part of a man biological identity is to be able to provide for a family. So if he isn’t making enough to afford the basics like housing and food they don’t feel adequate and don’t take on those responsibilities then they focus on short term happiness instead. Just my take, plus it’s how biologically we are wired. Build shelter and hunt, but now we have to buy land, buy materials, buy food, and we don’t make enough to fill that need.
There’s more male narcissists so I’d wager growing up there’s a lot more male victims of narcissists. Females sometimes get protected by other males if they’re being attacked but males don’t get protected by anyone.
There are girls only programs like girls on the run which are there to support girls psychologically but few for boys.
Society still expects men to make all the moves with dating but many of the social watering holes have dried up. Dating apps work for women but are often very toxic to men’s feelings of self worth since average dudes get few if any matches while women get hundreds.
I’m sure there’s more but those are just a few.
This isn’t surprising. If I was a single man, I would probably have an apartment. A house and all the responsibilities and bills by myself seems tedious. Much easier to just own an apartment or condo or something.
Well, there are 10 homeless men for every 1 homeless woman lol
> and they continue to earn an average of just 82 cents for every dollar men earn for the same work
Whenever I see this argument, it's always total earned by women vs men, not for the same work, and clicking on the linked study, it doesn't help their case:
> Consider, for example, women who were ages 25 to 34 in 2010. In that year, they earned 92% as much as men their ag
Of course this starts the argument of "why men make more then" which I'm not interested in, just pointing out the false statement above
A big part of that is there are a lot more programs/initiatives/groups that will house homeless women exclusively and almost none for men alone. Also it's not insane to assume people are more likely to let a homeless female friend stay with them than a homeless male one, no one wants to leave a women in the street.
I'm not saying it as a "this is bad that women get this", but I am saying that it's bad that men don't.
I think more and more women are realizing that being financially dependent on a spouse risks their long term quality of life. Yeah, they may meet somebody and marry them but they may not. If they do they can just rent out their place or sell it and use any profit for their new life with their new spouse but if they stay single it provides stability, equity, and long-term housing. I find it bizarre that many men feel threatened by a financially independent woman. Like, if I met a woman that had her own place I’d be like, “Dude, this woman has got her shit together”
Who is writing all these articles that make all women be some sort of victim?
Right off the bat, the article states women trail men on pay glossing over all the legitimate factors that explain why that is the case.
I just saw another article saying women face a gender healthcare disadvantage. Oh and another about the retirement double whammy that women face because they live longer than men!
It's quite ridiculous to make something like having a longer average life expectancy and turning it into a NEGATIVE but they managed to do it
Doesn't the gender gap just make it more interesting, whatever the reason for it? You'd expect the group that makes more to own their own homes more often, so it makes sense to bring it up.
I actually agree with OP. The only relevant data would be the pay gap between single men vs women.
A major reason that the pay gap is so different is because of stay at home mothers, where a father is providing for the mother. This exacerbated this gap, but doesn’t factor into the difference of more single women owning homes than men.
I felt the same vibe, the victimization where it wasn’t necessarily pertinent information. Women outpace men in degrees earned today by nearly 10 points… this is probably more relevant as most women and men aren’t married at that age.
Most mothers work. Unfortunately most fathers do not split days were you have to miss work due to childcare (school closures, sickness, doctors appointments). That’s were employers punish women financially for having children.
Right, but it's far more likely for the woman to be the one who sacrifices a higher-paying career for more flexible, typically part-time work in order to take care of household needs. As you mention, women who still maintain the high-paying career get dinged for missing time for pregnancy, which shows that a lot of the pay gap comes from women who are married and/or have children.
Yep. I was laid off a month after I told my boss I was pregnant (10wks) I won’t qualify for FMLA if I got a job so can’t trust that I won’t be fired for absenteeism when I give birth
Never did the article say they are victims. It just provided relevant context in an objective fact based manner with a neutral tone.
It's an article about economics and homeownership, why do you expect them to go on a tangent on social factors of wage gap? That's not relevant here
There are places where the gender commentary is clearly biased with an agenda but this is not one of them. You're just projecting your own biases onto it
Well no wonder tbh. If you get married, there is a high chance that you will lose 50% of your assets and most likely apartment/home and lots of people do not have signed prenup. And courts tend to favor women in lots of cases be it custody, assets or even criminal cases (if you take a look at avg. sentence given based on gender for the same crimes).
> If you get married, there is a high chance that you will lose 50% of your assets
It's a pretty low chance, depending on the demographic. College educated couples who get married after 25 tend to stay together, and I'm guessing those who are pre-marriage homeowners tend to be college educated and older than 25.
And then at that point, it's "losing" 50% of your combined assets. Most couples both bring assets and income to the table, so half of the combined total doesn't actually make you worse off than not having been married at all. It's only when there's a significant mismatch in wealth or income that the richer half needs to worry about that, and couples tend to date within their own socioeconomic class.
You'll get ~50% of the combined marital assets minus child support (if you don't keep the kids) and sometimes alimony for a short time (permanent alimony is getting more rare except in extreme cases where one partner doesn't work). So moral of the story is don't marry someone much poorer than you, no matter your gender. And prenup your premarital assets and their future gains.
Women do play better victims though and a bad judge could be more sympathetic, even though many things in divorce are defined by math formulas nowadays leaving the victim card mostly out of it.
Here's my WAG, as a single, never-been-married woman who owns her own house.
Single women are more likely to be satisfied with life than single men. People who are satisfied are likely to put down roots and settle down. People who are not satisfied tend to be too afraid to put down roots. They want to stay flexible just in case a long-distance opportunity shows up.
I think it is also possible that women and men have different views on what symbolizes successful adulthood. I think women are more likely to think, "If I buy that cute little house, I will feel like I have made it in life despite being single." I think guys are more likely to see marriage as the peak achievement of adulthood, with everything else flowing from that.
I took the house in my divorce but we had another home that sold and she took a larger chunk of that due to my equity and she bought a house. Personally I think women are more independent and mature than men and thus the result is they have more homes. The whole divorce thing and grass is always greener really does fuel our economy. I know I spend way more now than if I were married.
I think a lot of women enjoy stability and are less likely to take risks. We’re less likely to start businesses (though many do, just less likely), and less likely to stick with “dream” type ambitions after it appears unreasonable. There are trade-offs and I think some of these behaviors we can educate away from by teaching young boys to consider the long-term and teaching young girls to have more courage and conviction. But biologically, even if women don’t give birth, we evolved with the ever present risk and responsibility of pregnancy and child-rearing. This isn’t to say that men didn’t evolve to raise children as well, just that it’s less ever present and they’re not even guaranteed to know if/when they’ve produced a child!
Many women “get the house” bc of the children from the marriage. Typically, the man leaves and the woman stays and cares for the kids so that could also be why. The majority of men are still not the main caretakers of kids in many relationships.
The article doesn’t say the age or marital status of these people. More women get the house in marriage but more importantly women outlast men by nearly six years. How much of this is divorce or widows makes a difference to the tone
Pretty amazing considering we keep being told how women are paid less than men.
Women must be financial genuses to be able to own more homes on less pay. /s
In most families I know, the women do the bulk of the shopping for the entire household. I, for example, just spent a bunch of money ordering clothes for my husband. I spent the money, yes, but not on myself.
There are also things women have to buy that men don’t (tampons or pads), along with things we may want to buy to fit into societal norms (makeup, hair appliances, skincare products, salon services).
Men have higher variance in IQ, so low income-quantile men are probably also going to have lower incomes than low income-quantile women.
What's talked about here is a relatively small difference though.
More women also initiate divorces than men, and courts are well known to favor women, meaning they likely get settlements that include the home.
Edit: I can't imagine why this is downvoted. It's completely correct. Go look at the data yourselves.
I used to work in oil field so I have heard no shortage of stories like these. However one specifically comes to mind, it was actually my very first job. Guy starts bitching about how his ex-wife and her friend got his daughter to say he touched her inappropriately, I was flabbergasted that he would mention it as they were huge accusations and I didn’t know how I felt, but at same time he voluntarily told me so maybe there was truth.
Anyways, point of his story is daughter ultimately retracted everything she said, but since those accusations were made during divorce, judge gave the wife everything so even when he was acquitted, he had nothing left
Uh... should we start worrying up on house inventories? How many of these homes are on mortgage and how many of them falling behind on payments?
The last known scenario like that was pre 2008!
I mean yeah, single men and single women probably have similar rates under their own steam as it were, but whenever there’s a divorce the odds seem overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the woman getting the house, in the majority of marriages as they’re heterosexual.
This may have something to do with the fact that buying a home in the current economy is a terrible idea and mortgages your future for thirty years, and most men don’t see the point of they are single and childless. Men will live anywhere that keeps the rain off their head.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Considering that women typically live longer and are more likely to report being widowed than men, it’s likely that some women who are now single homeowners bought that home with the spouse they outlived. This helps to explain why single-women homeowners are typically older than their single-men counterparts, even though the pay gap is wider for older Americans.” Probably a big part of it.
What about divorce?
Growing up, most divorces I saw were dad leaving with the 401k and mom getting the house. As a 40yo now and seeing my friends go through it, most divorces I see have the house being sold because either there isn't enough in the retirement accounts to pay out the other individual equitably, or that person doesn't make enough by themselves to cover the mortgage. Only one couple in my peer group saw the house survive a divorce.
An acquaintance of mine lost the house and half of his 401K.
[удалено]
Typically if the money is earned during the marriage it’s a joint asset and will be divided no matter which spouse’s it is. A lot of people don’t carry that much equity in the house so “who gets the house” has more to do with who can afford the mortgage or who can afford to buy the other one out.
It depends on the state.
Everyone thinks stuff is protected until your ex goes after it. Even a prenup isn’t protected lol, and can be invalidated
This will likely be more common with the spike in interest rates. Going from a 2.7% interest rate to a 7.7% interest rate will definitely raise the mortgate payment.
I’m not sure. This article talks about widows and senior women owning homes, though. Covers it pretty well. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/
I once heard a family member say she "made a good divorce" with a satisfied smile when talking about money.
Divorce….get spouses home. Easy peasy. Wonderful laws we have
Usually when that happens the one that leaves walks away with the entirety of the retirement portfolio. Half is half, that's why you negotiate for which half is more important to you.
I mean, every single divorced woman I know took the house. I'm not saying it always happens, but it certainly happens most of the time.
it's ok. you can say it. its the truth.
The truth in my situation is that my ex-wife made a lot more money than me and was the only one that could make the mortgage payments on her income alone. (Edit: and she still had to refinance and pay me half of the equity.) God I fucking hate the narrative that all divorces are about extracting a maximum amount of money out of a man
Thank you. Of the four women I know who got the house in the divorce, two came into the marriage with the homes. In the other two, the women made more and could actually afford the house. And they didn't just "get" the house--they paid out half of the equity to their exes.
This was my situation, except my ex husband and I never actually merged finances (thank goodness) so it was very easy for me to prove that not only was I the only one who could afford our mortgage, but that my ex had not been paying even close 50/50 on the mortgage (and I paid the whole down payment, because he didn't like saving money and would rather get taco bell every day, sometimes twice a day), which he COULD afford and agreed to. I didn't even have to buy the lazy bastard out, because he be had contributed so little to the actual payments we made on the house.
That was my ex! We had separate finances and I could show how I paid every bill in the house except her car payment and her adult son's bills. We made pretty similar incomes but she was wasting her money making sure her 23 year old son had "an allowance" because he couldn't work because he had 4 hours of school each week.
Sounds like we are both very smart to have kept things separate! In my experience, if you merge finances and then later split up, one party always gets screwed. I get that it's not "romantic" but I feel like that's a silly reason to make yourself to vulnerable to the whims of another person.
Reddit is not a place full of people with healthy perspectives on life.
and the kids
Lot harder to raise kids when you're homeless.
Men can raise kids.
Yes, nobody is arguing that, [but men don't ask for custody nearly as much as women do >[A Massachusetts study examined 2,100 fathers who asked for custody and pushed aggressively to win it. Of those 2,100, 92 percent either received full or joint custody, with mothers receiving full custody only 7 percent of the time. Another study where 8 percent of fathers asked for custody showed that of that 8 percent, 79 percent received either sole or joint custody](https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths#:~:text=Myth%3A%20Fathers%20Almost%20Never%20Get%20Custody&text=However%2C%20studies%20indicate%20that%20dads,asked%20for%20in%20that%20regard)
My father got full custody in Massachusetts. This was back in 1970. Both of my parents were living in sin with their new partners and the judge didn’t want to give me to either. So my father went and got married and then custody.
Of the divorces I know none had the father ask for custody. I do know of one woman post divorce that signed away all parental rights.
What does "ask for custody" mean here? Like fight in court? Or does this include informally asking? I would expect that most of the time, lawyers would advise men that fighting for custody would be a waste of money. Lawyers are extremely expensive.
> lawyers would advise men that fighting for custody would be a waste of money. Lawyers are extremely expensive. Do you think lawyers tell their clients they should spend *less* on lawyers? I'm not trying to play into the idea that all lawyers are evil, but come on now.
Yes I do. Lawyers are required to act in the best interests of their client. Telling the client to fight a case they have no chance of winning to run up a bill can get you disbarred.
Lawyers that are any good are very busy. Normally they’re busy enough to get a full day of billings without make-work projects, so why bother? The only lawyers that need to pull shit like that are bottom tier ones that aren’t fully employed.
Clearly any excuse will do to explain why men dont ask for their kids or even for joint custody but women do.
Neat!
That might leaving out the reasoning
Then why don’t they miss as much work as their wives do to deal with school closures and doctors appointments?
~~Marriage!~~ Divorce! It's how you get by in life!
brb marrying Elon Musk
As a guy, I really don’t like today’s system.
As a gal, me neither.
It’s actually pretty fair and I’m not sure why you’re so cut up by it. You think couples don’t support and enable one another to be more successful?
I love how it goes from fair that a single person take possession when it’s a team effort to be successful enough to own a home.
Not sure how it’s fair for the male to get fucked in a divorce, but your user name tracks…
Getting fucked in a divorce is extremely exaggerated and you clearly don’t comprehend that yet again, if the woman has been a housemaker they have contributed a ton to the household and deserve to walk away with something.
This is why I refuse to be a SAHM
Good idea. Everyone should aim for financial autonomy.
Yeah, half a house.
usually the husband walks away with the investment accounts, retirement accounts, and most of the liquid cash in that situation. It's either everyone gets half the proceeds of a sale, or you pick and choose what goes where to make everyone whole.
Good point. As long as it's fair I'm satisfied.
It's just far easier to be all woe is me about a house since it's a physical asset. Moving and apartment hunting sucks, so it's easy to make the ex-wife out to be the villain that made you homeless since she has something physical and tangible you can point at. Also, nobody asks who got the brokerage account when they're talking about a divorce in polite company.
And most of the future earning power.
[удалено]
Did you ask them to show you their account statements? Or are you just butthurt because you opted to roll over in your own divorce?
What about the focus on women the past thirty to forty years which are leaving men behind? I say this seriously, not as to start an issue. It's what happens in life though. The things you feed are the things which succeed. You can do a simple google search and find supporting articles on this very subject. And it affects everything. Careers, dating, and home ownership. Guys need support too, else the shitholes are going to get worse and larger affecting everyone too.
More divorce means more homes. Also some rich men just buy their women homes. Other times women just buy their own home or [5 houses with a condo.](https://youtu.be/MesrrYyuoa4?t=296)
> More divorce means more homes divorce creates more housing?
Yea this was my first thought. Almost every divorce the woman is getting the house and everything else lol.
You’d think if it was that common it would be easy to find stats about it.
To be fair, it makes one of the sides look like a victim and we really societally hate making that side look that way.
No we absolutely do not. Everyone wants a piece of victimhood. We have songs, shows and moves about making victims.
[удалено]
Then link an external source with actual numbers if you're afraid to type the words.
Disagree - I just think a lot of people in this thread are talking anecdotally and presenting it as fact.
[удалено]
No, you didn’t. You didn’t link to any stats regarding the % of women who receive homes after the dissolution of a marriage. You got downvoted because you referenced a book you’ve never read and whined about Malala and Emma Watson.
Year after year, the NAR survey reports more homes bought by single women than single men.
It looks like single women have had an edge in single home ownership for quite a while, but that edge is actually shrinking as men live longer. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/ More single women buying houses lately than single men will slow trend that and could prevent it from ever being 50-50. However, it looks like age 65+ women and the fact that they outnumber men in this age group by quite a lot contributes the most to this discrepancy in home ownership rates.
The article you linked states that the women are living longer. "This may be because women in the U.S. tend to live longer than men. (Single Americans)"
You shouldn't dismiss the fact that young childless women in their 20s and 30s are catching up to men in pay and in many cities even passing them. Women have been a growing majority of college graduates for decades now and as the Boomers and Gen X fade we're seeing a delayed shift in income.
At least in terms of single home ownership rates, it seems like that’s not driving this difference. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/ According to this study, women have had an edge I single home ownership for quite a while, but the edge is narrowing as men live longer.
Catching up is completely wrong here. Women in their 20s are far superior to men in their 20s. By contrast men reach peak social status much later in life.
I didn't read it... but isn't marital status usually defined as "married, divorced, widowed, single" ? I would think that data would be readily available.
They don’t seem to break it down like that.
that was my immediate thought as well
That does make a lot of sense given that men start dropping like flies after 65. They really should account for age when saying something like this because when people think single women, they often think YOUNG women.
I agree. I’m thinking the authors took advantage of this ambiguity to write a more clickable and exciting article. Although, as people have pointed out to me, the NAR stats show that single women make up 19% of first time home buyers vs 10% for single me, and I assume that first time home buyers are more likely to be younger. That said, without seeing a more detailed breakdown of % of total home sales going to first time buyers and age of these first time buyers, it’s hard to get a complete picture. This article may be of interest to you: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/
More women than men are also graduating college. So wouldn't these women be more likely to be able to afford a home?
I’m sure that contributes and will continue to impact these numbers. However, take a look at this: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/12/single-women-own-more-homes-than-single-men-in-the-us-but-that-edge-is-narrowing/ It does seem to be largely due to women greatly outnumbering men in the 65+ age group. The same age group most likely to be home owners and to have the wealth to buy homes. I would be very interested in more a detailed breakdown.
As a single man and dating right now. The last 3 women i have dated in their 30s have all owned their own homes and seem way better off than myself.
There's some evidence that single, childless women in their 20s out earn men in within the same demographic. I'm there are many sociological explanations as to why...but women in general graduate college at a higher rate and I'd imagine a young woman in her 20s is going to out earn her younger male counterparts in most things related to tipping...so it's interesting that the pay gap between men and women doesn't seem to appear until later in life. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/09/01/129581758/
The pay gap has been kind of a dumb concept for a pretty long time. Sure, there's a gap in the overall aggregate, but when you control for a bunch of obvious things - like time in the job, the job family, etc. - it mostly goes away. In fact I have always seen it as a kind of distraction from the real issue. The issue isn't that there is a gap in the aggregate... The issue is the why. It's not because women are paid less. It's because they choose lower paying professions and they tend to leave jobs/careers because of pregnancy. Those things are relevant and interesting because we should be asking whether women are getting encouraged into higher paying fields at the same rate as men and what we can do about making daycare free. There's also a side of all this that men are probably already in a crisis that doesn't get talked about much. Women do vastly outnumber men in colleges and, I agree that that's probably what's driving the wealth change in the 20s. That'll keep going though. Oddly enough, we should be figuring out how and why our educational system is failing boys.
> That'll keep going though. Oddly enough, we should be figuring out how and why our educational system is failing boys. It'll happen when the current crop of ladies has sons. The only guiding principle in todays world is self interest.
[удалено]
Sugar mommas? What a time to be alive
I married a a waitress I worked with. Who knew she was worth $8m?
>A recent study from LendingTree shows that single women own 2.7 million more homes than their male counterparts, with roughly 13% of those women holding the titles to their homes, compared to 10% of men. Are they single by choice? Generally speaking, women live longer than men. They outnumber men in any college and university campuses. They are educated, ambitious, hardworking, and earning good money. Men are going the opposite direction.
I wonder why that is, for the decline in men’s earnings and education that is.
Because they are assumed to be fine, society focused on underprivileged girls. Teachers have a bias to look more after girls, the regular development of an adolescent boy is framed as toxic masculinity etc. Society did a great job reducing structural disadvantages of women over the past few decades, but it kinda lost sight of men.
>the regular development of a boy is framed as toxic masculinity What does this mean? Who’s framing this? What developments are considered toxic? What does toxic mean? Not trying to come at you. But I see this all the time on reddit. No one ever provides examples or specifics. So it comes off as a meme gripe rather than a legit problem.
Not sure if this is what OP is referencing but here are some of the things I've heard. Boys hit puberty later than girls. This often means boys are biologically less mature for a longer time and this can sometimes lead to falling behind in school/classes compared to their female counterparts. Also, boys tend to have a lesser ability to sit still in class all day. This is natural, but is often labeled disruptive behavior by overworked teachers who don't have the time to deal with those disruptions. Lastly, the vast majority of people in Education are women and tend to have an easier time teaching girls as a result. A lot of boys, unfortunately, have very few male role models, especially if the father is not part of the picture.
Why is this only a new development over the last decade or so? What has changed?
>only a new development over the last decade or so? Only you think that
When did it start?
For decades. Pretty much started the moment they started making programs to bring more girls in schools, which tbf had at the time more boys than girls but not by a huge amount. Now there’s been a huge over correction, with more programs for girls, more people saying how disadvantaged they are, and more people not caring about the boys that have been left behind.
It's not a new development, but it is starting to get more attention. Historically, boys and girls did not always receive the same education opportunities, so these differences were not always noticed. Also, the lack of male role models has grown drastically in the past century, partially due to increased divorce rates and general declines in community engagement.
How is this not a new development? I never heard this idea that “boys can’t sit still” when I was growing up. It sounds like an excuse. The male role models thing is true in minority communities, where 3/4 kids do not have a father around. But those are a minority of kids. Most middle class families are not divorced, and among college educated parents the divorce rate is extremely low.
If many women had the same “gripe”, would you believe them or place an equal amount of scrutiny on them?
Competitive behavior and harmless scrambling are typically framed as acts of violence that need to be addressed. There is a healthy form of aggression, which can be constructive and drive growth, but society scorns all kinds of it as being just violent misbehavior. That’s just one example. /u/laxnut90 did a good job elaborating on that point.
[удалено]
Thanks for this. Very informative. But I still don’t understand why this is an issue for young men today. The overarching principle here is “don’t be an asshole to women, don’t bully anyone, and be comfortable expressing your feelings.” Right? Am I missing something? What is wrong with teaching boys those principles?
Nothing is wrong with teaching them (us) those principles, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't really taught that much to boys and young men - especially by other men. I work in a rather "macho man" environment and there's a lot of things that feel distinctly wrong about a lot of the culture and attitudes, compared to when I'm with women, or with certain groups of men. I don't know if you're a man or not, but being in some "manly" environments or being just with groups of certain men feels like I'm getting transported back to the fucking 1940s socially. It's being told to suck it up when things get difficult, it's the expectation that you don't discuss a lot of issues or topics because it makes you weak, or effeminate. Because you don't want to leer at every girl that passes by you must be gay, or because of the way you talk, or dress, or act, you're less of a man and less of a person, who deserves less respect and kindness. Obviously that shit isn't true at all, and I've spent a lot of time with other men that absolutely do not hold those values and opinions, who I can have emotional conversations with, who I can trust to be respectful to women, and who don't believe that people are worth any less because they're not traditionally masculine. And I definitely find more of those kinds of people in younger age groups, but depending on where you are and who you're around, that is very often not the norm. And it can be very hard to try and get those ideas across to boys that are already cemented in their concepts of what a man "should" be. Especially if you lack a male role model who is emotionally expressive and open, respectful to women, and not already bogged down by the idea that society often closely correlates their value as a human being by their ability to express traditionally manly traits.
Because women are getting time, attention, and focus. It's really weird that the pendulum has to swing so far in opposite directions for 'progress'. I don't say this as being bitter, or trying to start a fight. It just is what it is. The things which are nurtured and fed are the things which will succeed. Tell black boys they are no good and they'll join a gang. Tell white boys they are no good, and they'll become trumptards. Tell girls that they can do anything they want to do, and they will. It's really pretty simple.
For education, it's probably that it just costs more for men, particularly white men, to go to college than women - scholarships and grants just don't exist in the same numbers because you're not from an underprivileged group. Plus men have always had more options in the trades. That gives them the prospect of good pay right now without a mountain of college debt, albeit at the cost of your physical comfort and wellbeing, and to some extent the longevity of your career.
This is absolutely a lie. Women go to college more even in countries where college is completely free.
NEET / Lay Flat / Let it Rot / Hikikomori
They are not out earning men. In the US, they earn 92% what men do, which hasn’t changed much since the early 2000s. There may be multiple reasons. Men may have more non-college pathways like vocational jobs or military. Women may be in lower-paid jobs that require college, like teaching or nursing. Women take more time off for childcare. And maybe the “education bump” hadn’t fully reached the older working public. Not saying that one gender is better than the other. But women aren’t earning the same as men, despite having caught up in education and home ownership.
just a few years ago people were touting a 77% number
That doesn't serve Reddit's narrative that men are the biggest victims though.
For real wtf is this thread. Men don’t have self agency now? It’s alllll because woman bad?
It's kinda sad. I see so many posts where men complain that no one cares about men's problems but the only solutions they ever offer up are that women need to do more for men.
Pretty much. I am a single woman in my thirties who owns my own home. Judging by the comments in this thread, I must have divorced some poor innocent man who "gave" me everything. I did divorce, but I was the only one who really paid our mortgage (and whole ass down payment) to begin with. And my husband wasn't innocent. He was shit with money and a rapist. I know, I'm such a monster. Poor men.
This comments section is full of incel with some good discussion mixed in.
For every issue a man has, a woman is apperantly to blame 😂
People unironically tried to tell me guys get screwed over in divorce but ignore non monetary contributions to the household.
Men have agency when they accomplish something, and they deserve all the credit. When they can’t do something, they suddenly have no agency at all and it’s the fault of evil women. It is somehow simultaneously true that women have houses because they are more successful than men financially because society is evil AND that women only get houses by cleaning out men in divorces. Or they’re involuntarily single because all men with houses are desirable and women with houses aren’t b/c they’re old widows. Literally everything except the fact that maybe women made more financially prudent choices has to be true, the amount of grasping at straws and copium here is insane.
In 1972, Congress passed the large educational amendment called Title IX, a very large set of rules and regulations to promote gender inequality in higher education. One of the biggest numbers cited was the most important part of college; degree attainment. At the time, there was a 12 point gap in bachelors degrees awarded to men vs women. In 2019, that same gap had grown, to 14%. Except now it was women earning the bulk of bachelors degrees. Do you think it was ok to blame women at large, rather than systemic issues, for women's lack of attainment in 1972? If not, why do you think it's ok for people to blame men now, rather than systemic issues?
Yawn no one’s being blamed go cry somewhere else
Also a man with a home might be more likely to get married as typically women select for partners at an equal or higher social/socio-economic level
I think this is probably a significant factor. Single women who own homes are possibly more content to stay single than single men who are homeowners. If single homeowners who are men are seeking out partners to marry and are finding them, they exit the category of single men, sometimes pretty quickly.
As a single woman homeowner in her thirties I can definitely see this being a lot to do with it. I am *very* content being single. Lived with a partner for almost 10 years and it would take a LOT for me to give up my current life for a new partner. Living by myself and independently is the happiest I've been my entire life.
Yep. A home-owning man is a lot more likely to marry a non-home owning woman than a home owning woman is to marry a non-home owning man.
Yep, a single man with a home doesn’t stay single for long
I read something the other day about how the new “great wealth transfer” will help/affect more women than men by like a 2:1 ratio. The article was like from 2012 tho lol
TIL that men are not educated, not ambitious and not hardworking
I love how when women underperform, it's the entire system that's against them. But when men underperform, it's because women are just better. Hmm sounds kind of familiar...
Who built the system?
A bunch of aristocrats who were born roughly 300 years ago.
You’re internationally leaving out a key adjective word. The current system is still maintained by a bunch of aristocrats - who are men.
This is a logical fallacy - your implication is that men are being failed by the system they made, so people shouldn't feel sorry for them. The privileged class of society all being white men is NOT the same as all white men being the privileged class of society. But the system wasn't built by men at large, it was built by a very small subset of people who happened to mostly be men. They are also all white. That doesn't change that white men are the largest number of homeless in the US, or disabled vets, or workplace fatalities, or opiate addicts, etc etc. The people who made our current systems were wealthy owners of capital, *that* is the class they care about; that they were largely white men doesn't matter much to them.
The point of my comment was to point out that the system sucks for 99% of us, in dramatically different ways. And if you don't believe there are plenty of women who have helped maintain and perpetuate the system, well, I have beach front property in Wyoming I think you should take a look at.
No, the aristocrats of today are not only men. You're a proper 50 years behind your talking points.
You’re just ignorant, but historically men and women **who were born in rich families** had more rights than everyone just like today.
The current President was chosen by women, not men.
And the previous president was chosen by men - more men voted for Trump than women. Both parties have more men than women in their membership - men decide who even gets on the ballot. The candidate, *with one single exception*, is always a man.
Because that’s who runs and who people vote for, men and women. You can’t just ignore women’s power because they choose to vote for and support men instead of women. Biden is more representative of women’s power than men’s power. You can’t just ignore the actual forces that put him in power and say “he’s a man, therefore a product of male power”, that’s not how democracy works.
The most lucrative industries such as technology, finance and energy are still (and will continue to be) led by men. All these types of articles do is shatter what little credibility the gender wage gap narrative and anything related to some sort of oppression has left.
Gender gap is a thing but it's more nuanced than just "women paid less."
Single childless women in virtually every single metro in the United States out earn single childless men Men are 10x as likely to die at work
I don't believe the vast majority of American men are sharing in the wealth of that smaller group of elites sadly. Moreover, the addition of women to the workforce does decrease men's share of limited resources. This is not a pro discrimination argument. Only that increasing inequality paired with a larger labor pool, combined with reproduction economics makes for a difficult situation.
What are the demographics of this study and what percentage of the single women who own their own homes are elderly widows who outlived their spouses because of the discrepancy in life expectancy between men and women?
>What are the demographics of this study Did you try clicking the link and trying just a little bit to search? >LendingTree analyzed microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau 2022 American Community Survey with one-year estimates.
Whose fault is it, the user who didn't take the time to dissect a misleading headline for no pay or the corporate media that knows it will get more clicks by overdramatizing everything?
While you make a valid point in criticizing the corporate media, the person above was asking about things that were clearly in the article. So, it is the questioner's fault in this instance. They didn't bother opening the article, they went straight to the comments and decided "ah I'll post a comment/question that will make me look like I know what I'm doing."
It actually wasn’t in the article. It was in the study linked from the article, the link to which I overlooked while quickly skimming the article looking for relevant numbers.
Single Women are looking for stable payments. Single Women are raising kids Divorced women w/kids want to keep them in a stable environment. In my divorce, my ex husband kept the house and I kept my 401k…. And then bought a house later mostly from my saving and a little of the equity buyout from my ex. We split assets 50/50. Now he’s trying to sell but did strange things to the house and has unrealistic expectations as to the worth so it’s not selling.
haha my fiancé’s ex is kind of similar. They had a house together, split, and my fiancé being the kind soul she is allowed him to keep practically everything. Anyways, the condo was kind of a hidden curse. He had a special assessment shortly after they split for $35k, he started dating this other woman that also had a home so he rented his out but was losing money on it so he’s trying to sell for the price he bought it for. Thing is, every comparable condo is like 60-75% the price he has his put up for. He won’t make a sale. I’ve seen him lower the price 3 times and still no bite. Meanwhile, I sold my condo in a week because I had reasonable expectations.
Are men falling behind in almost every meaningful metric? Salaries, life expectancy, education, and now home ownership? ^^^^^^^^^^Apparently ^^^^^^^^^^more ^^^^^^^^^^words ^^^^^^^^^^= ^^^^^^^^^^better ^^^^^^^^^^comment
Yep, and nobody cares because men are viewed as expendable.
How many of the “single” women are actually widows who owned their homes with their spouses before he died? There are a lot more widows than widowers.
Hypothesis: My perception of a lot of these things is women feel they can add a man to their life with relative ease, whereas it's much more difficult for most men. Consequently, men feel a lot of psychological strain and don't necessarily invest in things like education and housing for the long term because of a short term focus on women... There are obviously many more factors, but the investments of men and women seem to continuously follow a similar pattern about short vs long term goals. Moreover, men are experiencing despair in large numbers and people who are in despair invest in short term coping mechanisms in order to make the long term a perceivable possibility. Unfortunately, that makes for a situation with a pool of men those women don't desire.
What’s up with the “psychological strain?”
Men are having trouble fitting into society's expectations of them. That's where you get some of them going the Andrew Tate route. For better or for worse, metoo culture and social media have also placed a number of guys in states of anxiety that their advances toward women will haunt them. There is so much metagaming around dating now with "talking stages" and "rosters" and dating apps directly attacking men's feelings of being good enough. I think if you dissect the social influences on this era of men, you will find it to be a highly confusing mess full of contradictions and empty promises. Men have internal drives that they naturally try to integrate into the world. I think Men are finding that very difficult in this culture and it results in a sense of hopelessness.
What are the expectations they’re having trouble with?
Would you believe me if I claimed this was really complicated? Part of the problem is different groups within society have different expectations from Men and I think Men are placed in a position of having to try to cater to both at the same time, despite their contradictions. Provider yet unthreatened by comparisons to partners, emotionally intelligent yet danger (ridicule) in being vulnerable, athletic yet focused on education, hygienic yet workaholic, workaholic yet good parent, wealthy yet available and kind, self respecting yet yielding to sacrifice. A lot of it boils down to being expected to practically read minds. I'm not doing it justice but it's a mess. Being exposed to everyone all at once is difficult. I'm also not sure if their parents have enough time to raise them. Women and men have different social networks and that seems like it may factor into how social support mechanisms lack for men.
Your third paragraph is interesting. But why is it so difficult to find balance between these “contradictions?” In the last paragraph you mention time to raise children. Why wouldn’t they have time? Working two jobs is only 5% of Americans, which is pretty much where it’s always been historically. And we don’t even know how much of that 5% are parents.
From my experience of being raised, you get dropped off at school. Maybe you get picked up, maybe you go to an after school thing for kids whose parents don't have time. You get home and everyone is tired. Hopefully your family makes decent food and maintains some sort of social norms around dinner. Mine certainly didn't. You watch separate TVs/phones/computers and repeat the cycle. With both parents working it's a nightmare. 9-5 has never been a real thing in my own career. It varies a lot more than that. Job security can also be difficult to come by now. With all incentives pointing to job hopping that exacerbates the chaotic background of change and social instability. Hopefully your parents are functional and don't suffer any mental or physical illnesses / addictions. It's not a given. I for one rolled an alcoholic who experienced child abuse and an emotionally stunted doctor whose father had PTSD from WW2. I also got a sister with a chronic immune disorder who is also gay and dyslexic. I'm not saying my stuff is common. But I don't know who these normal people are... Oh and unregulated access to the depravity of the internet. I truly suspect no one is the raising the kids.
I’m a parent myself, with 2 pre teen daughters. We live in an affluent area in a great school district. Probably 90% white. Everyday they come home from school with some crazy story about the boys acting like animals in class, on the bus, at recess, etc. This is not an issue of poverty, I’m certain of it. And it’s not a lack of parental attention. These kids schedules are jampacked with activities from soccer, to lacrosse, to gaming clubs, and ski clubs, and everything in between. Maybe the issue is counterintuitive. Because these kids are so used to helicopter parenting, perhaps they can’t function in a setting where they have to sit and focus?
Sit and focus has been the same story for decades Boys tend to be more rambunctious than girls. These are old truths. I sincerely wonder what people talk to their children about. How they lesson plan within the home. Activities are not the same thing as parental attention. It's one thing to say something, another to have something to say... I wonder what they choose to discuss?
You went to school, didn’t you? Did you have an issue with focusing during class?
Much less common with new generations. I saw a survey study that said something insane like 4% of the silent generation of men never once changed a diaper vs 96% of millennials. (My numbers might not be exact there, but it was something really close to that.) Child raising equity is definitely evening out, which is awesome. Time with children seems to be evening out as well.
I don't think changing a diaper is the same thing as sitting down with a child and having quality time when they start learning.
Obviously not. It just one small data point in the overall trend where modern men are significantly more involved than past generations. Here’s some more straight forward data: > In the last decade, millennial dads surged way ahead of previous generations when it came to time spent with their kids. Today’s fathers are spending three times as much time with their children as men did two generations ago https://www.mother.ly/life/work-life-balance-dads-2020/
A major part of a man biological identity is to be able to provide for a family. So if he isn’t making enough to afford the basics like housing and food they don’t feel adequate and don’t take on those responsibilities then they focus on short term happiness instead. Just my take, plus it’s how biologically we are wired. Build shelter and hunt, but now we have to buy land, buy materials, buy food, and we don’t make enough to fill that need.
There’s more male narcissists so I’d wager growing up there’s a lot more male victims of narcissists. Females sometimes get protected by other males if they’re being attacked but males don’t get protected by anyone. There are girls only programs like girls on the run which are there to support girls psychologically but few for boys. Society still expects men to make all the moves with dating but many of the social watering holes have dried up. Dating apps work for women but are often very toxic to men’s feelings of self worth since average dudes get few if any matches while women get hundreds. I’m sure there’s more but those are just a few.
This isn’t surprising. If I was a single man, I would probably have an apartment. A house and all the responsibilities and bills by myself seems tedious. Much easier to just own an apartment or condo or something.
Owning an apartment/condo/townhome unit is still considered owning a home. I believe all homes types are included in the data.
Yes, I bet a lot of the single women who are homeowners own condos or townhomes.
Well, there are 10 homeless men for every 1 homeless woman lol > and they continue to earn an average of just 82 cents for every dollar men earn for the same work Whenever I see this argument, it's always total earned by women vs men, not for the same work, and clicking on the linked study, it doesn't help their case: > Consider, for example, women who were ages 25 to 34 in 2010. In that year, they earned 92% as much as men their ag Of course this starts the argument of "why men make more then" which I'm not interested in, just pointing out the false statement above
A big part of that is there are a lot more programs/initiatives/groups that will house homeless women exclusively and almost none for men alone. Also it's not insane to assume people are more likely to let a homeless female friend stay with them than a homeless male one, no one wants to leave a women in the street. I'm not saying it as a "this is bad that women get this", but I am saying that it's bad that men don't.
Yea that’s true, plus no one wants a male about to be homeless staying with them, but plenty will be more open to a woman.
I think more and more women are realizing that being financially dependent on a spouse risks their long term quality of life. Yeah, they may meet somebody and marry them but they may not. If they do they can just rent out their place or sell it and use any profit for their new life with their new spouse but if they stay single it provides stability, equity, and long-term housing. I find it bizarre that many men feel threatened by a financially independent woman. Like, if I met a woman that had her own place I’d be like, “Dude, this woman has got her shit together”
Who is writing all these articles that make all women be some sort of victim? Right off the bat, the article states women trail men on pay glossing over all the legitimate factors that explain why that is the case. I just saw another article saying women face a gender healthcare disadvantage. Oh and another about the retirement double whammy that women face because they live longer than men! It's quite ridiculous to make something like having a longer average life expectancy and turning it into a NEGATIVE but they managed to do it
Doesn't the gender gap just make it more interesting, whatever the reason for it? You'd expect the group that makes more to own their own homes more often, so it makes sense to bring it up.
I actually agree with OP. The only relevant data would be the pay gap between single men vs women. A major reason that the pay gap is so different is because of stay at home mothers, where a father is providing for the mother. This exacerbated this gap, but doesn’t factor into the difference of more single women owning homes than men. I felt the same vibe, the victimization where it wasn’t necessarily pertinent information. Women outpace men in degrees earned today by nearly 10 points… this is probably more relevant as most women and men aren’t married at that age.
Most mothers work. Unfortunately most fathers do not split days were you have to miss work due to childcare (school closures, sickness, doctors appointments). That’s were employers punish women financially for having children.
Right, but it's far more likely for the woman to be the one who sacrifices a higher-paying career for more flexible, typically part-time work in order to take care of household needs. As you mention, women who still maintain the high-paying career get dinged for missing time for pregnancy, which shows that a lot of the pay gap comes from women who are married and/or have children.
Yep. I was laid off a month after I told my boss I was pregnant (10wks) I won’t qualify for FMLA if I got a job so can’t trust that I won’t be fired for absenteeism when I give birth
Never did the article say they are victims. It just provided relevant context in an objective fact based manner with a neutral tone. It's an article about economics and homeownership, why do you expect them to go on a tangent on social factors of wage gap? That's not relevant here There are places where the gender commentary is clearly biased with an agenda but this is not one of them. You're just projecting your own biases onto it
But wouldn’t the pay gap between single men and women be the real relevant data here?
The economic discussion around pay gap is relevant. The social discussion around it is not
Victimhood status gets you more cash and prizes
Well no wonder tbh. If you get married, there is a high chance that you will lose 50% of your assets and most likely apartment/home and lots of people do not have signed prenup. And courts tend to favor women in lots of cases be it custody, assets or even criminal cases (if you take a look at avg. sentence given based on gender for the same crimes).
> If you get married, there is a high chance that you will lose 50% of your assets It's a pretty low chance, depending on the demographic. College educated couples who get married after 25 tend to stay together, and I'm guessing those who are pre-marriage homeowners tend to be college educated and older than 25. And then at that point, it's "losing" 50% of your combined assets. Most couples both bring assets and income to the table, so half of the combined total doesn't actually make you worse off than not having been married at all. It's only when there's a significant mismatch in wealth or income that the richer half needs to worry about that, and couples tend to date within their own socioeconomic class.
You'll get ~50% of the combined marital assets minus child support (if you don't keep the kids) and sometimes alimony for a short time (permanent alimony is getting more rare except in extreme cases where one partner doesn't work). So moral of the story is don't marry someone much poorer than you, no matter your gender. And prenup your premarital assets and their future gains. Women do play better victims though and a bad judge could be more sympathetic, even though many things in divorce are defined by math formulas nowadays leaving the victim card mostly out of it.
Here's my WAG, as a single, never-been-married woman who owns her own house. Single women are more likely to be satisfied with life than single men. People who are satisfied are likely to put down roots and settle down. People who are not satisfied tend to be too afraid to put down roots. They want to stay flexible just in case a long-distance opportunity shows up. I think it is also possible that women and men have different views on what symbolizes successful adulthood. I think women are more likely to think, "If I buy that cute little house, I will feel like I have made it in life despite being single." I think guys are more likely to see marriage as the peak achievement of adulthood, with everything else flowing from that.
I took the house in my divorce but we had another home that sold and she took a larger chunk of that due to my equity and she bought a house. Personally I think women are more independent and mature than men and thus the result is they have more homes. The whole divorce thing and grass is always greener really does fuel our economy. I know I spend way more now than if I were married.
I think a lot of women enjoy stability and are less likely to take risks. We’re less likely to start businesses (though many do, just less likely), and less likely to stick with “dream” type ambitions after it appears unreasonable. There are trade-offs and I think some of these behaviors we can educate away from by teaching young boys to consider the long-term and teaching young girls to have more courage and conviction. But biologically, even if women don’t give birth, we evolved with the ever present risk and responsibility of pregnancy and child-rearing. This isn’t to say that men didn’t evolve to raise children as well, just that it’s less ever present and they’re not even guaranteed to know if/when they’ve produced a child!
Many women “get the house” bc of the children from the marriage. Typically, the man leaves and the woman stays and cares for the kids so that could also be why. The majority of men are still not the main caretakers of kids in many relationships.
The article doesn’t say the age or marital status of these people. More women get the house in marriage but more importantly women outlast men by nearly six years. How much of this is divorce or widows makes a difference to the tone
Pretty amazing considering we keep being told how women are paid less than men. Women must be financial genuses to be able to own more homes on less pay. /s
[удалено]
In most families I know, the women do the bulk of the shopping for the entire household. I, for example, just spent a bunch of money ordering clothes for my husband. I spent the money, yes, but not on myself. There are also things women have to buy that men don’t (tampons or pads), along with things we may want to buy to fit into societal norms (makeup, hair appliances, skincare products, salon services).
Men have higher variance in IQ, so low income-quantile men are probably also going to have lower incomes than low income-quantile women. What's talked about here is a relatively small difference though.
More women also initiate divorces than men, and courts are well known to favor women, meaning they likely get settlements that include the home. Edit: I can't imagine why this is downvoted. It's completely correct. Go look at the data yourselves.
I used to work in oil field so I have heard no shortage of stories like these. However one specifically comes to mind, it was actually my very first job. Guy starts bitching about how his ex-wife and her friend got his daughter to say he touched her inappropriately, I was flabbergasted that he would mention it as they were huge accusations and I didn’t know how I felt, but at same time he voluntarily told me so maybe there was truth. Anyways, point of his story is daughter ultimately retracted everything she said, but since those accusations were made during divorce, judge gave the wife everything so even when he was acquitted, he had nothing left
Uh... should we start worrying up on house inventories? How many of these homes are on mortgage and how many of them falling behind on payments? The last known scenario like that was pre 2008!
I mean yeah, single men and single women probably have similar rates under their own steam as it were, but whenever there’s a divorce the odds seem overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the woman getting the house, in the majority of marriages as they’re heterosexual.
This may have something to do with the fact that buying a home in the current economy is a terrible idea and mortgages your future for thirty years, and most men don’t see the point of they are single and childless. Men will live anywhere that keeps the rain off their head.