# Unequal/Unfair Marriages
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154
**Category:** Unbounded
**Created:** [March 6, 2026, 5:45pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154 "2026-03-06T17:45:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:33am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/21 "2026-03-08T00:33:12Z")
Maybe in a general way. I guess I’m mostly just not surprised to see it and I think there’s a predisposition for researchers to suggest these kind of things because it has been made a staple. A similar example is how environmentalism is injected into a lot of topics that it really doesn’t belong in.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:33am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/22 "2026-03-08T00:33:30Z")
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/478):
>
> > [@anonymous111](#):
> >
> > Where are you getting those numbers from?
>
> No particular source (just like general knowledge now), but it’s easy to find. Here’s a reddit thread discussing it and some links. [https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/18sbbbh/what\_percentage\_of\_men\_actually\_reproduced/](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/18sbbbh/what_percentage_of_men_actually_reproduced/)
You made a specific claim. When I asked where you got the number from, you said it was “easy to find”, but then you gave a link that gave different numbers than the ones that you had given.
Saying it’s “easy to find” implies that I did something wrong: that I could have done a simple google search to find these “easy to find” numbers. That I am asking you to link me basic “general knowledge” (as you called it), instead of just searching for it myself. It’s a bit like the “let me google that for you” trope.
But the claim you made is _not_ just generally accepted basic knowledge that is easy to find. When I search it, I do find the numbers you quoted, but often not together in the same place (i.e. I find both your number for women, and your number for men, but often from different sources.). And I also find lots of disagreement and lots of other numbers. And you yourself found other numbers and then _linked them yourself as a source._
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:39am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/23 "2026-03-08T00:39:53Z")
> [@anonymous111](#):
>
> You made a specific claim. When I asked where you got the number from, you said it was “easy to find”, but then you gave a link that gave different numbers than the ones that you had given.
Right, but the 40% and 80% exact numbers don’t matter. If anything, the parts that matter IMO are: men’s most likely outcome was not reproducing, women’s was reproducing, and the gap is large.
> [@anonymous111](#):
>
> Saying it’s “easy to find” implies that I did something wrong
I disagree. Example: Shannon’s work on information theory is easy to find but I don’t know it off the top of my head and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to either (some engineering fields aside). Maybe that’s a bad example because of how broad it is (I’m thinking atm of the limits on information in a signal and that kind of early super important work).
So ‘easy to find’ for me is more like a flag that I can always go look up exact details if needed (low overhead) and the exact specific values aren’t important, the broader concept is.
I apologize if it read like I was implying something. I was just trying to be casual and not go overly deep on something that didn’t need it.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:44am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/24 "2026-03-08T00:44:36Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> Right, but the 40% and 80% exact numbers don’t matter. If anything, the parts that matter IMO are: men’s most likely outcome was not reproducing, women’s was reproducing, and the gap is large
Where you got the numbers from matters to how I would interpret them. So looking for an exact match to your numbers is a way to try to find what you are actually talking about.
There are a bunch of different types of claims online about this, and I still don’t know specifically what you think. I don’t know what arguments you have found convincing here. I don’t know what you think this means, why you think it happens, what research you think is good, etc. So I really don’t know how to discuss it without just making a bunch of guesses about you, and that doesn’t seem like a great use of my time.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:46am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/25 "2026-03-08T00:46:12Z")
> [@anonymous111](#):
>
> I think that the contemporary leftist worldview about this is actually that patriarchy hurts everyone, including men.
Maybe. There are obviously sources that align (like BFITF itself).
We might be miscommunication about what “contemporary leftist worldview” means. I would not see that as meaning the typical academic worldview, but rather the layperson’s.
If you ask most self-identified feminists on the street, I’m not sure how many of them would agree without prompting/leading.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:47am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/26 "2026-03-08T00:47:31Z")
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/488):
>
> > [@anonymous111](#):
> >
> > Saying it’s “easy to find” implies that I did something wrong
>
> I disagree. Example: Shannon’s work on information theory is easy to find but I don’t know it off the top of my head and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to either (some engineering fields aside). Maybe that’s a bad example because of how broad it is (I’m thinking atm of the limits on information in a signal and that kind of early super important work).
>
> So ‘easy to find’ for me is more like a flag that I can always go look up exact details if needed (low overhead) and the exact specific values aren’t important, the broader concept is.
You did not giving an example of someone _asking where you are getting specific statistics from_ and you _responding_ by telling them it’s “easy to find”.
I don’t think that saying something is “easy to find” in _all_ contexts implies something negative. The issue is using that as a response to someone asking for sources.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:52am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/27 "2026-03-08T00:52:35Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> I apologize if it read like I was implying something. I was just trying to be casual and not go overly deep on something that didn’t need it.
I asked you for a source for your claim. You are now implying (or stating?) that giving that source would be going “overly deep on something that didn’t need it”.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:53am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/28 "2026-03-08T00:53:25Z")
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/489):
>
> Where you got the numbers from matters to how I would interpret them. So looking for an exact match to your numbers is a way to try to find what you are actually talking about.
Okay that’s fair.
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/491):
>
> You did not giving an example of someone _asking where you are getting specific statistics from_ and you _responding_ by telling them it’s “easy to find”.
IDK about that. I think you were pretty casual and that my response wasn’t evasive in context. There could be similar conversations that were evasive (eg “[asked directly] what is your source?” → “it’s easy to find” is evasive).
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/478):
>
> > [@anonymous111](#):
> >
> > Where are you getting those numbers from?
>
> No particular source (just like general knowledge now), but it’s easy to find.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:55am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/29 "2026-03-08T00:55:48Z")
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/493):
>
> I think you were pretty casual and that my response wasn’t evasive in context. There could be similar conversations that were evasive (eg “[asked directly] what is your source?” → “it’s easy to find” is evasive).
>
> > [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/478):
> >
> > > [@anonymous111](#):
> > >
> > > Where are you getting those numbers from?
> >
> > No particular source (just like general knowledge now), but it’s easy to find.
Do you see how that would be a reasonable response if I were asking about like, converting between kilograms and pounds, but it’s a bit different when you introduced a specific claim that is not actually general knowledge?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 12:59am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/30 "2026-03-08T00:59:30Z")
No. I think it was a reasonable way to read the question and I answered with a valid and reasonable answer.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 1:01am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/31 "2026-03-08T01:01:02Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> No. I think it was a reasonable way to read the question and I answered with a valid and reasonable answer.
Are you saying you don’t see the difference at all? I asked if you see that “it’s a bit different” and your answer to that is no.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 1:13am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/32 "2026-03-08T01:13:56Z")
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/493):
>
> > [@anonymous111](#):
> >
> > You did not giving an example of someone _asking where you are getting specific statistics from_ and you _responding_ by telling them it’s “easy to find”.
>
> IDK about that. I think you were pretty casual and that my response wasn’t evasive in context. There could be similar conversations that were evasive (eg “[asked directly] what is your source?” → “it’s easy to find” is evasive).
Also, I’m not sure what you mean here.
You say you don’t know about that. Do you mean you don’t know if you didn’t give an example like that? Or are you saying that you don’t know if my interpretation of the conversation is correct?
You are talking about whether your answer was evasive, but that wasn’t even my main concern. I don’t recall bringing up evasiveness at all. The thing I had brought up wasn’t about your evasiveness. It was about how saying something is “easy to find”, in response to being asked for it, can imply that you think the other person should have found it themselves instead of asking you.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 3:06am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/33 "2026-03-08T03:06:30Z")
> [@anonymous111](#):
>
> You say you don’t know about that. Do you mean you don’t know if you didn’t give an example like that? Or are you saying that you don’t know if my interpretation of the conversation is correct?
The latter, more like ‘IDK if I agree with you there’.
> [@anonymous111](#):
>
> You are talking about whether your answer was evasive, but that wasn’t even my main concern. I don’t recall bringing up evasiveness at all.
I read that as your concern, and more importantly maybe, it is my concern that I might have been evasive. And yeah I brought up the term.
> [@anonymous111](#):
>
> It was about how saying something is “easy to find”, in response to being asked for it, can imply that you think the other person should have found it themselves instead of asking you.
Yeah I can see that in some cases. That wasn’t my intent.
To clarify my position on the lifetime reproduction rates thing:
- I think it’s widely accepted in the relevant fields and there aren’t any substantial contradictory points.
- because it’s widely accepted, the specific sources don’t matter much. (A possible counterpoint here might be that there are few primary sources consistent with the claim. I haven’t checked if this is the case or not)
- The specific numbers don’t matter that much (2-in-5 vs 4-in-5 as numbers have 1 significant figure or less).
- The important takeaways are the big disparity and long time period.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 3:17am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/34 "2026-03-08T03:17:37Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> > double divorcé
>
> A lot of ultra high status men have divorces too. Not sure this is very relevant.
Yeah, I put it in for one reason: there’s a lot of pressure for her to misleadingly present the situation. I’m reminded of the quote about it being hard for someone to argue/understand something is bad when their livelihood depends on that thing. If she (or her audience) thinks that marriage is wholesale bad, then being more truthful about it might be hard to do.
It doesn’t mean she’s wrong, but is (potentially) important.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 3:25am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/35 "2026-03-08T03:25:33Z")
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/473):
>
> > [@anonymous45](#):
> >
> > I was a bit triggered by the clip so I said it partially as an emotional reaction to the lefty bits.
>
> Do you think that’s a potential sign of exposure to and belief in contradictory propaganda? Or an indicator of tribalism?
Yes. I try to be conscious of that kind of influence and avoid it, but it’s still there.
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/473):
>
> I’m guessing you didn’t research the studies before being triggered (since you didn’t talk about them), which sounds like a bad sign to me, though let me know if you did!
No, not those exact studies. My research got a the point of being able to do that with more effort (eg I found what looks like the original video, so presumably I could go from there), but even finding Gilbert’s name took a bit.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 3:47am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/36 "2026-03-08T03:47:52Z")
I made some notes on the video for quick reference; quotes are my transcription:
Hardcoded title: “Marriage according to a statistician & data scientist”. The video presents Gilbert as a statistician & scientist. The title specifically calls Gilbert that, it is not suggesting that she is a layperson otherwise it would have said ‘according to stats and the science’ or something. It uses the determiner ‘a’ and Gilbert is the obvious reference.
* * *
1. “The worst thing a woman can do, statistically speaking, is to get married to a man.”
2. Married women compared to single women: don’t live as long, earn less, are less happy. “—they report themselves, in every single way that you can measure, sociological data for wellness, as being less contented than single women.”
3. “Married men, on the other hand, married to women, outperform single men by such a measure that it is perhaps the healthiest thing that a man can do, is to get a woman to marry him.” (examples given: life expectancy, career, income, creativity, suicide risk, victim of crime or risky behavior)
4. “In every single possible way, the best thing a man can do is get married to a woman.”
5. “Those imbalances are exactly equal, meaning that the percentage of herself that a woman gives to a man, she loses and he gains. So she’s literally giving her life to him.”
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 4:54am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/37 "2026-03-08T04:54:05Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> OK so I didn’t look up the study yet. Let’s take a look now. Gemini claims her sources are:
>
> [The Future of Marriage](https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2639&context=lawreview)
>
> [Revisiting the Relationships among Gender, Marital Status, and Mental Health](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/339225)
>
> [Happy Ever After](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Happy_Ever_After/DmFdDwAAQBAJ) (book)
>
> [The Relationship Between Sex Roles, Marital Status, and Mental Illness](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/60009021/The_Relationship_between_sex_roles__marital_roles_and_mental_illness-libre.pdf)
>
> Are you already familiar with any of these?
I checked briefly and 2 of them (first and last) are from 1972. They might be relevant but a lot has changed. The mental health hypothesis – I would guess – has not panned out very well.
The 2019 paper sounds interesting but is paywalled and the abstract doesn’t mention any conclusions.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 5:39am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/38 "2026-03-08T05:39:05Z")
The full video:
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENEngFbQLYA)
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 6:01am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/39 "2026-03-08T06:01:04Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Gemini claims her sources are:
>
> [The Future of Marriage](https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2639&context=lawreview)
>
> [Revisiting the Relationships among Gender, Marital Status, and Mental Health](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/339225)
>
> [Happy Ever After](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Happy_Ever_After/DmFdDwAAQBAJ) (book)
>
> [The Relationship Between Sex Roles, Marital Status, and Mental Illness](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/60009021/The_Relationship_between_sex_roles__marital_roles_and_mental_illness-libre.pdf)
FYI Gemini was very unreliable for me when I asked it about some things yesterday (mostly trying to figure out who it was). Also, in the full transcript, Gilbert doesn’t mention any sources so I’m not sure where Gemini is getting that from.
ChatGPT was a lot more grounded. Here’s a log of the conversation (note: first few messages are from when I was looking for Gilbert, the msg about sources is from today): [https://chatgpt.com/share/69ad0bb3-27a4-800a-a7a8-32b4b21202a7](https://chatgpt.com/share/69ad0bb3-27a4-800a-a7a8-32b4b21202a7)
She might mention sources in her book or somewhere.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous111](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous111)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2026, 10:09am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154/40 "2026-03-08T10:09:35Z")
> [@Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/498):
>
> > [@anonymous111](#):
> >
> > You are talking about whether your answer was evasive, but that wasn’t even my main concern. I don’t recall bringing up evasiveness at all.
>
> I read that as your concern, and more importantly maybe, it is my concern that I might have been evasive. And yeah I brought up the term.
Ok, well it wasn’t my concern. That wasn’t why I was bringing it up at all. I have felt several times in this conversation like you have been dismissive towards me. My concern was related to that, not to whether you were being evasive.
[Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/unequal-unfair-marriages/2154.md?page=3)