Any generalization is simplistic and wrong: that was my point.
Because, thinking of a single anecdotal experience (my circle of friends) I could also generalize, by saying that men are all egoists who are allergic to commitment... and they are the exact opposite of stalkers and women-obsessed people.
Because all my female friends are unmarried and most of them are divorced...because their men dumped them (I have to use this expression, because men promise you eternal love and they disappear as if they had been abducted by ETs).
So...to conclude, generalizations can lead to single and childless women.
But in my country...I never listen of stories of women who hate men because they were stalked by them. They hate them because they were abandoned by them.
I'll try to put a man's point of view, which is deliberately simplified. And it applies to people who play by the rules, not men who abandon their families and other bad actors.
Traditionally, marriage had both benefits and disadvantages for both men and women.
Men got sex they didn't have to pay for and a comfortable place to live where they didn't have to do housework or the messier side of child raising. If the woman no longer wanted sex, or so much sex, it was tacitly accepted that they got some elsewhere and women looked the other way so long as he was keeping up his end of the bargain in other ways. On the down side he was effectively trapped in a relationship and perhaps a job that he maybe no longer enjoyed.
Women had a secure place to raise their children, a guaranteed standard of living, and didn't have to have sex if they were prepared to tolerate a little infidelity. But she was the inferior party legally (at one time, not so long ago, she couldn't own property) and men were generally considered to be "in charge". Her opportunities outside the home were very limited.
Then it all changed ....
From a man's point of view, the woman got more from the change than he did, though women might argue differently. He still has to provide for the woman and children, though she is now sharing that burden. But now he doesn't have the comfortable home and well raised children, as he is expected (quite reasonably) to share the tasks that were previously considered the purview of women. He is now much more considered the (sexual) property of the wife and fidelity is expected, regardless of whether she is "performing" in that area. Divorce is now much easier, but the property is still divided in half, regardless of the financial contribution that either made, and he often still has to continue financial support.
Is there any wonder that some men decide that the downside of marriage outweighs the upside and decide against it? Sex is a lot easier to get outside marriage now, and you get to keep all your money, and live your life without getting ordered around.
Ladies, please don't jump all over me, I could write the same thing from a woman's perspective. Freedom for women has come with a heavy price. I'm just trying to put a point of view.
