Posted on 11/06/2025 8:47:10 PM PST by SeekAndFind
For most of human history, coupling up was not merely a norm; it was a necessity. Before reliable contraception, women could not control their fertility, and most were far too poor to raise children alone. Hence the centuries-old convention that, whereas a tragic play or saga ends in death, a happy one ends in marriage.
So the speed with which the norm of marriage—indeed, of relationships of any sort—is being abandoned is startling. Throughout the rich world, singlehood is on the rise. Among Americans aged 25-34, the proportion living without a spouse or partner has doubled in five decades, to 50% for men and 41% for women. Since 2010, the share of people living alone has risen in 26 out of 30 rich countries. By The Economist’s calculation, the world has at least 100m more single people today than if coupling rates were still as high as in 2017. A great relationship recession is under way.
For some, this is evidence of social and moral decay. As we report, many in the “pro-natalist” movement believe that the failure of the young to settle down and procreate threatens to end Western civilisation. For others, it is evidence of admirable self-reliance. Vogue, a fashion magazine, recently suggested that for cool, ambitious young women, having a boyfriend is not merely unnecessary but “embarrassing”.
In fact, the rise of singlehood is neither straightforwardly good nor bad. Among heterosexuals (about whom there is the most research) it is largely a consequence of something clearly benign: as barriers to women in the workplace have fallen, their choices have expanded. They are far more able than in the past to live alone if they choose, and face less social stigma for doing so. The more they can support themselves financially, the less likely they are to put up with an inadequate or abusive partner. This shift has saved countless women from awful relationships, and forced many men to treat their mates better if they want to stay together.
However, it has also had unhappy knock-on effects. Flying solo can be liberating, but it can also be lonely. Plenty of singletons say they are content to remain so, especially women. But surveys in various countries suggest that 60-73% would rather be in a relationship. A poll in America in 2019 found that, although 50% of singles were not actively looking for a partner, only 27% said this was because they enjoyed being single. Many have given up, either because they despair of finding a mate, or because they don’t rate the mates on offer.
Some think social media and dating apps have fostered unrealistic expectations (other people’s relationships look fabulous on Instagram) and excessive pickiness (most women on Bumble reportedly insist that a male must be six feet tall, thus filtering out 85% of potential matches).
Another problem is the growing political gulf between young men and women, with the former leaning right and the latter leaning more to the left. Many singles insist that any partner must tick the same partisan boxes, which makes matching trickier.
Other experts point to a decline in social skills as people spend more of their lives gawping at screens. Americans of all ages socialise less in person than they did two decades ago, but the decline is especially steep among the young. Social media spread fears that women will be assaulted if they go out; and that men will be digitally shamed if a date goes badly.
Perhaps the most important factor is that, as living alone has become easier, women’s standards have grown more exacting. For many, a mediocre partner no longer seems a better bet than remaining single. Women are more likely than men to say that they want their mate to be well educated and financially solid. More men are failing to clear this moving bar, as they fall behind women educationally and the less bookish ones flounder in the job market. Men with no college degree and low earnings struggle to attract a partner; doubly so if they do not share domestic chores, or if after frequent rejection they start to dislike women, a common vice in the online “manosphere”.
Some of these problems may be self-correcting. One obvious idea is for men to grow up, do a little more housework, behave more responsibly and so turn themselves into more desirable partners. Cultural norms may impede this shift. But the prospect of avoiding lifelong loneliness and celibacy will surely serve as a powerful incentive for men to change. Many countries have been moving in this direction for years, with cleaning, cooking and child-minding more evenly split between men and women.
And yet, even in such enlightened spots as the Nordic countries, the trend towards singlehood shows no signs of abating. In Finland and Sweden roughly a third of adults live alone. At the very least, the shift is likely to exacerbate the already dramatic fall in global fertility, since single-parenting is hard and cultural taboos against it remain strong in many regions. Since young, single men commit more violent crimes, a less-coupled world could be more dangerous.
It is also possible that the relationship recession will not correct itself. A striking 7% of young singles say they would consider a robo-romance with an AI companion, and these lovebots will only get more sophisticated. AI, after all, is patient; AI is kind; it does not ask you to clean the bathroom or get a better job.
Many may worry that a world with fewer couples and children will be sadder and more atomised. Yet bemoaning the prospect will not avert it. And it is not the place of governments to overrule ordinary people’s preferences—though they should certainly try to tackle male underperformance in school. A future with far more singletons is coming. Everyone, from construction firms to the taxman, had better prepare. ■
The Rothschild own a 21% stake in the economist
The Agnelli family of Italy own almost 50% and are the dominant force behind the board.
The Agnellis are big Meloni supporters. Own Ferrari, Stellantis, playboy lifestyle, anti-tax, pro NATO with a hint of globalist. A 180 year blue collar Kardashion family.
The simple fact is that women now earn as much, or more, than men of their own age.
Studies show that women tend to look for a partner in better financial shape than themselves... for security reasons...
Today, their pool of potential mates has shrunk in a large way... but their desire has not changed...
Thus, 90% of women pursue 10% of the men.
For the 10% of men in question, they really have no need to settle down... they know today’s liberated women will sleep with them regardless of a relationship being in place... so most women will be used and cast aside...
As for the 90% of men, they will lose hope after being rejected, used and/or ridiculed for their lack of abilities and/or ability to provide... Many will just stop trying...
Congratulations women, you’ve come a long way... it’s now time to be more realistic when it comes to marriage... or learn to like cats...
The Rothschilds have controlled it for decades: https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/11/10/remembering-evelyn-de-rothschild-chairman-of-the-economist-for-17-years
Here’s the deal: https://www.politico.eu/article/agnellis-rothschilds-close-in-on-economist-magazine-sale-pearson/
And Meloni ain’t what she appears to be (as is not Trump).
I don’t think anything there is inconsistent with what is reported elsewhere.
Angellis have a near 50% stake, one of the Rothschild families with 20% (there are 5, sone pathetic leftists, some just out for a buck, and few really decent people). I don’t know which this is.
Why should the husband automatically have to earn more than the wife?
You presented no additional information (e.g.: "Husbands totally neglect domestic duties, refuse to rear children, etc."), so given only what you've said - i.e., that the women outearn the men - I see no problem!
I have always been the main breadwinner in my family. Until our (two) children were grown up and out of the house, I allowed my wife to complete her Master's, raise our children until they reached school age, then futz around teaching 4 or 6 hours per week at the university (earning comparable to what an earlier generation of wives would have referred to as "egg money").
Now I'm retired - and my combined pensions dwarf her salary as a half-time teacher of Ukrainian refugees.
Yet I would never refer to her as a "worthless jerk," just because she earns less than I draw through my pensions.
As long as the combined incomes of the two spouses suffice for a comfortable living - what does it matter that the man does only "off again, on again" jobs?
Regards,
Ridiculous first paragraph. Had to ditch it.
From what I've seen, they chose worthless jerks who are "losers" over guys who are boring but very responsible.
Because usually they have charisma. And women tend to respond to that.
RE; Ridiculous first paragraph
What’s so ridiculous about it, I thought it was an accurate observation regarding history.
Whenever this topic comes up, men completely ignore the influence of No-Fault Divorce, which allowed men to trade in their aging housewives for younger models. Do you remember the phrase “Trophy Wife?” Men have contributed to this greatly. It wasn’t just feminism that convinced women to go out and earn their own keep. It was fear that they’d be discarded once they were middle-aged.
Sure, women went out and had children with multiple fathers because they were afraid a husband they never had was going to discard them in their middle age in order to trade them in for younger model, using No-Fault Divorce.
I will pin a lot of the blame on Hugh Hefner and his “Playboy Philosophy”.
Many young people are so detestable who can blame them for being repulsed by each other.
That was the first thing on the list!
First rule in coupling up
Have same goals and the bonus round same interests.
I don't know of a time when successful men were able to dump their wives for cheap. I've never seen it in my lifetime. Women earning a salary/having a career is fine. Both of my big sisters are doctors. The problems are 1) when women prioritize career over finding a mate and let their youth slip away in the process because obviously men have always greatly prized youth in a potential wife and 2)while men have no problem marrying a woman with less education or who earns far less than he does, women have a huge problem with that. So the more educated a woman gets and the more she earns, the more potential husbands she rules out.
Yes its great and all if the above description doesn't fit you and/or doesn't fit your friends. Those are anecdotes. In a large majority of cases, those descriptions DO fit. Thus the decline of marriage in the last couple generations.
I'd say have the same values and either have the same goals or at least be able to accept it if the other person has different goals. For example if she doesn't want to stay home and wants to continue working even when the children are younger...is that something you can accept? Or if its the opposite, can you accept that you're going to have to tighten your belt financially for a few years as she stays home and takes care of the kids?
Fear not, you are an eternal being.
Deep States everywhere are waging a war on the healthy, happy, intact nuclear family.
And Deep States are winning.
In this sad sad world, possibly by being lonely. ;-D
What a world.
“What the article assiduously avoids admitting is that fully HALF of all women are themselves “mediocre” - or worse!”
If you look at pictures of women of the 1950s and 1960s in crowd pictures—and then look at them today—the difference is shocking.
A “5” in that time period is an “8” or “9” today.
That means the competition for the more attractive women is very difficult for young men.
It is hard to blame the men for refusing to “settle”.
P.S. Young women were more pleasant to be around in those days—on top of the physical attractiveness issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.