> How this works is that a poor woman from a bad neighborhood in her teens is happy if the guy doesn't beat her, isn't a substance abuser and has a job at all.

> How this works is that a poor woman from a bad neighborhood in her teens is happy if the guy doesn't beat her, isn't a substance abuser and has a job at all. Then she gets an education and her expectations change. Of course, he won't be a substance abuse. Of course, he won't beat her. He also should have a professional job, dress well, and have certain other appealing traits. Her expectations go way, way up. Wait, so in your (incredibly patronizing) scenario, the ideal outcome is this hypothetical woman ends up with a man who she just really hopes doesn't abuse her? All so she can take advantage of a fertility window that won't materially change for another decade? I will always support more flexible access to education, but arguing this is somehow the best way for everyone is a really weird take on things. > It's an overwhelmingly male forum. The issues involved in waiting to have kids that so many women find agonizing are being trivialized. I'm being attacked and dismissed. The basis for my knowledge is being attacked as irrelevant. Etc. > Y'all have fun as men hashing out how women ought to view this issue. Ah yes, a male-dominated system where women are told by men what they should be thinking. I feel like there's a word for for that.