Who holds the power in the marriage dating market?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to find them early - by 25. You don’t have to get married by then, but you need them in hand. If they aren’t willing to be serous at that age, move on. Plenty of men want a best friend/serious partner by that age. You have to choose intelligence and potential - not wait until the potential is realized - by then it’s too late.

This is largely true. Most men are still romantics at that age and don't have many dating options. This is the perfect time to lock down a guy who has Tier 1b/2 looks but Tier 1a earning potential. It becomes much harder to lock these guys down once the numbers turn in their favor and they start seeing the material benefits of their hard work.

There are way more women working to find a husband than there are men trying to find wives. Some perfectly nice women are going to miss the husband boat. I honestly think it’s half effort and half luck to find a good husband.

That's a woman's POV. It's usually a POV that develops in their late 20s to early 30s when what you say actually becomes the reality for them.

Women have ZERO agency in the popular narrative on dating dynamics. 97-99% are close to picture perfect, have great qualities any man should cherish and seek out financially stable and responsible men who would make great fathers starting at age 22. The problem, they say, is a shortage of "quality" men for all of these high quality women.

The reality is that there are millions of men seeking to lock down quality women into LTRs. Most women, at least the college-educated types that supposedly can't find their "equal," do get married after all. But if you don't start dating seriously until 27-32, or have a host of other issues that sane men can spot from a mile away, then dating for marriage is going to be harder for you. Women severely overestimate the number of "quality" women simply because they are not dating women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to find them early - by 25. You don’t have to get married by then, but you need them in hand. If they aren’t willing to be serous at that age, move on. Plenty of men want a best friend/serious partner by that age. You have to choose intelligence and potential - not wait until the potential is realized - by then it’s too late.

My daughter is 24 and dating sounds like hell for her quite frankly. They are the first generation where dating is heavily done by apps and it’s not good.

My daughter is only in elementary school. She has two older brothers with so many friends. We have tons of family friends.

I used to meet men everywhere I went - school, work, train, conferences, friends birthday dinners, etc.

24 should be her absolute prime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a late thirties woman who has observed the dating and marriage market for well...15+ years since I entered it, this is an interesting topic for me.

As women we are told that we have the power in that any man would be willing to sleep with us. I would agree that being a youngish and average looking woman means that it is exceptionally easy to find a man to date and sleep with.

However, getting commitment from men, is a whole other matter. As a marriage minded twentysomething, it was very difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. Most did not make enough income to make supporting a wife and children a feasible option, especially in DC when many of my peers were in the policy, non profit or government space.

The men were happy to hook up and date casually but almost no one had marriage in mind. My beautiful smart twentysomething girlfriends and I kept dating and getting dumped from one guy to the next.

In our thirties, the dating pool gets even more scary as now there is a shortage of men as those interested in marriage suddenly start proposing to the girl they are dating and walking down the aisle. The shift is swift and confusing. In every instance, the man who proposes has a high paying job or acquired one within the past two years of proposing. They certainly did NOT date the pretty girls in their twenties with the intention to marry...but instead...dated with the intention to marry in a very short window of time in their early twenties when they started to make money! Whoever they happened to be dating at that point...got the ring! It was like a game of musical chairs!

So you see...it appears that in the dating and marriage market...it is the men who are the choosers and the gatekeepers. They decide when to propose and to whom. A woman's future as a wife and a mother depends on whether a man finds her worthy to be his bride!

Wouldn't you try harder to meet the guys working at Capital One or Carlyle or BigLaw associates or Defense companies or Danaher or Marriott HQ or any of the other companies that pay real $$$s?

Because those guys have horrible schedules and tons of travel. It's not appealing.

Personally I would go for a nice GS-11/13 with promotion potential.

You don't sound like OP however.

I'm not at all like OP. Here are my key points.

1) Get your head around the logistsics being a single mother by choice, that way you won't think a man is necessary. Did that in college. The lack of desperation is really important here.

2) Date to marry. If anyone's not a good match, no matter how nice he is, bid him farewell. It's better to be single. And don't conceal this-- the goal is to run off anyone who isn't also dating to marry. I don't know why OP says it's difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. They might not want it right that moment, but there are plenty who do want it in their mid-thirties.

3) Don't date people who have non-family-friendly jobs. This means BigLaw partner track, consulting, anything really secretive, anything with terrible hours or too much travel or that doesn't have a suitable earnings trajectory. Figure out who's on track for a job that pays well enough and also allows time for a family, and date those guys.

4) Be marriage material. Don't act or dress tacky, don't get drunk, have a good career of your own and save money, pursue a MA or MBA or JD or whatever. Keep your eye on the long term. Don't have your life on hold-- go ahead and buy a condo if you like. This will be appealing to them!

What's a real-world example of this job (I guess understanding everyone has their own definition fo a job that "pays well enough")?

3 is a way to get non-Alist guys -- I don't mean type A -- I mean smart, ambitious guys -- they will go for the jobs you do not like. The guys that are left -- what you call the "well enough" guys are a combo of not smart, not serious, have issues that women on DCUM talk about all the time, who in 20 years will never make enough for you. The guys you do not like are the ones that women should target.

Oh please. I'm very happily married to someone who would never want one of those jobs, is plenty smart and serious, makes more than enough money, and is a great and present father. I would be miserable as a BigLaw wife. Ugh.

Why do you think you would be miserable as a BigLaw wife? Just curious - as I am one. Never been miserable. I would be miserable with what I see as the description of Biglaw life that was just not DH's experience.

Because I was a BigLaw associate in 2008 and saw how miserable everyone was and the losses the partners took. Because I really like my kids to have a father who is present and available (not saying yours isn't, it's just not the norm-- or maybe we define those things differently). Because I don't like having to go to events. Because I'm more attracted to guys who are trying to make a difference in the world, as long as they're sensible about it, and I don't really feel the need for that level of money in general.

I was a Biglaw partner in 2008 -- what losses are you talking about? 2008 was a good year -- things happened too late to make a bad year and 2009 was a blow out year because the second half was so great -- what losses did the partners suffer? My DW goes to no events and never has -- I have a lot of time for the kids -- in fact more time in a lot of key ways than my DW -- but I have learned that my experience may not be like others. I never was an associate - clerkships right to Fed with promotions and high impact cases and then to partner.

The financial crisis, widespread layoffs, Heller Ehrman, Thelen, Dewey... Lots of firms lost significant valuation and the partners had to eat the losses. Many associates were shown the door, partners quietly fired or de-equitized, and 2008 grads were given severance and never even started work. Sounds like you avoided it but believe me, it was traumatic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/decades-biggest-law-firm-collapses-2009-12#thacher-proffitt-8

Layoffs for associates -- yes. Sucks if firm closed. But at all other top firms partners did fine. There is no such thing as firm valuation. There were no losses to eat if your firm did not implode. As I said 2008 was fine and 2009 was better. Almost all of the partners at the firms that did implode had partnerships quickly and most got signing bonuses so they lost little. Impact is on the associates and those few partners with no work. Tramatic for them - yes I can see that. But Biglaw just moved on.

I think there is one or two frequent posters on dcum who are now stay at home moms, but were big law associates for like 1-2 years 15 years ago, and they constantly post about their experience as though their 18 months as an associate is reflective of what it is like to have a career in big law. They also have to sh*t on it because it rationalizes why they left both biglaw and working altogether. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I've seen this poster post for years to ever time I've ever mentioned my (on balance) enjoyable biglaw career.

I hate that I know who you are talking about. I’m a SAHM and know a lot of moms, both working and not working, married to men who are partners at law firms. Some seem more niche in their own firms. Some work at obvious biglaw big names and make millions. They all seem like they have a functioning family to me.

I recently when to a lovely home of a new friend. They have 4 kids. Husband was so polite and helpful with food and kids. They had the nicest house I have been to in a long time. He was great. He kissed his wife and said he had some work to do and went to the office.

I know husbands who only earn 100k who act like they are too tired or just don’t want to help with kids or house.

[Anonymous]

I remember some guy in college saying how women have more options and dating power now but it flips as we age. I remember thinking I would not date him in college or ever.

I met DH in grad school.

That guy may have had a point. An attractive girl in her twenties has many choices. Depending on where she goes to college and who she hangs out with will determine the type of men she meets.

I went to college and grad school in Boston and worked in Manhattan after graduation. I met high quality men all the time.

[Anonymous]

There is power over sex and power over marriage. Women generally have power over sex until they hit their late 30s (assuming they age normally). The issue is that women all chase the same few men. Because those men have control over sex and consume it with reckless abandon, women complain that they can't find a man. The problem is that they won't date men with fewer options, so they're competing in a horrible game of musical chairs to win one of the few men who are openly desirable (tall, handsome, and an earner or wealthy).

Women used to control marriage by creating a cartel around sex, but they gave up that market power in the 60s, so now men control whether they marry. However, the mediocre men who aren't having sex can't find a wife, so the mediocre men and leftover women are choosing to be alone rather than coupling with each other.

I met DH when he and all of his friends were still single. DH was the first of the group to propose and we were married about a year after our first date. In the next two years, all of DH's friends, who are exactly the types DCUM would have coveted in their 20s, got married. It was amazing to see how quickly it happened. Of the roughly twelve guys, not one proposed to a girl in her 30s. All were in their early-to-late 20s.

When a woman hits 30 without an engagement ring, she needs to choose whether to settle or be alone.

So, to answer: Quality men have all the control over sex and marriage. No one else wins in the current dating market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is power over sex and power over marriage. Women generally have power over sex until they hit their late 30s (assuming they age normally). The issue is that women all chase the same few men. Because those men have control over sex and consume it with reckless abandon, women complain that they can't find a man. The problem is that they won't date men with fewer options, so they're competing in a horrible game of musical chairs to win one of the few men who are openly desirable (tall, handsome, and an earner or wealthy).

Women used to control marriage by creating a cartel around sex, but they gave up that market power in the 60s, so now men control whether they marry. However, the mediocre men who aren't having sex can't find a wife, so the mediocre men and leftover women are choosing to be alone rather than coupling with each other.

I met DH when he and all of his friends were still single. DH was the first of the group to propose and we were married about a year after our first date. In the next two years, all of DH's friends, who are exactly the types DCUM would have coveted in their 20s, got married. It was amazing to see how quickly it happened. Of the roughly twelve guys, not one proposed to a girl in her 30s. All were in their early-to-late 20s.

When a woman hits 30 without an engagement ring, she needs to choose whether to settle or be alone.

So, to answer: Quality men have all the control over sex and marriage. No one else wins in the current dating market.

How do you know your husband is a top quality man and not just a mediocre man who couldn’t get sex in his 20s so he chose to lock you down ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is power over sex and power over marriage. Women generally have power over sex until they hit their late 30s (assuming they age normally). The issue is that women all chase the same few men. Because those men have control over sex and consume it with reckless abandon, women complain that they can't find a man. The problem is that they won't date men with fewer options, so they're competing in a horrible game of musical chairs to win one of the few men who are openly desirable (tall, handsome, and an earner or wealthy).

Women used to control marriage by creating a cartel around sex, but they gave up that market power in the 60s, so now men control whether they marry. However, the mediocre men who aren't having sex can't find a wife, so the mediocre men and leftover women are choosing to be alone rather than coupling with each other.

I met DH when he and all of his friends were still single. DH was the first of the group to propose and we were married about a year after our first date. In the next two years, all of DH's friends, who are exactly the types DCUM would have coveted in their 20s, got married. It was amazing to see how quickly it happened. Of the roughly twelve guys, not one proposed to a girl in her 30s. All were in their early-to-late 20s.

When a woman hits 30 without an engagement ring, she needs to choose whether to settle or be alone.

So, to answer: Quality men have all the control over sex and marriage. No one else wins in the current dating market.

How do you know your husband is a top quality man and not just a mediocre man who couldn’t get sex in his 20s so he chose to lock you down ?

Come on. We all know what a top quality man is. Sure, different people value different things but top is top. Most women want the same top 10-20% of men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is power over sex and power over marriage. Women generally have power over sex until they hit their late 30s (assuming they age normally). The issue is that women all chase the same few men. Because those men have control over sex and consume it with reckless abandon, women complain that they can't find a man. The problem is that they won't date men with fewer options, so they're competing in a horrible game of musical chairs to win one of the few men who are openly desirable (tall, handsome, and an earner or wealthy).

Women used to control marriage by creating a cartel around sex, but they gave up that market power in the 60s, so now men control whether they marry. However, the mediocre men who aren't having sex can't find a wife, so the mediocre men and leftover women are choosing to be alone rather than coupling with each other.

I met DH when he and all of his friends were still single. DH was the first of the group to propose and we were married about a year after our first date. In the next two years, all of DH's friends, who are exactly the types DCUM would have coveted in their 20s, got married. It was amazing to see how quickly it happened. Of the roughly twelve guys, not one proposed to a girl in her 30s. All were in their early-to-late 20s.

When a woman hits 30 without an engagement ring, she needs to choose whether to settle or be alone.

So, to answer: Quality men have all the control over sex and marriage. No one else wins in the current dating market.

High-value women still have control over sex and marriage. Men of all ages still want a beautiful twenty-something who is kind, interesting, educated and comes from a good family. None of my attractive friends from college who wanted to be engaged in their twenties had a problem finding someone. One or two focused more on their careers and didn't approach dating seriously until their thirties, but they, too, still found their person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is power over sex and power over marriage. Women generally have power over sex until they hit their late 30s (assuming they age normally). The issue is that women all chase the same few men. Because those men have control over sex and consume it with reckless abandon, women complain that they can't find a man. The problem is that they won't date men with fewer options, so they're competing in a horrible game of musical chairs to win one of the few men who are openly desirable (tall, handsome, and an earner or wealthy).

Women used to control marriage by creating a cartel around sex, but they gave up that market power in the 60s, so now men control whether they marry. However, the mediocre men who aren't having sex can't find a wife, so the mediocre men and leftover women are choosing to be alone rather than coupling with each other.

I met DH when he and all of his friends were still single. DH was the first of the group to propose and we were married about a year after our first date. In the next two years, all of DH's friends, who are exactly the types DCUM would have coveted in their 20s, got married. It was amazing to see how quickly it happened. Of the roughly twelve guys, not one proposed to a girl in her 30s. All were in their early-to-late 20s.

When a woman hits 30 without an engagement ring, she needs to choose whether to settle or be alone.



So, to answer: Quality men have all the control over sex and marriage. No one else wins in the current dating market.

High-value women still have control over sex and marriage. Men of all ages still want a beautiful twenty-something who is kind, interesting, educated and comes from a good family. None of my attractive friends from college who wanted to be engaged in their twenties had a problem finding someone. One or two focused more on their careers and didn't approach dating seriously until their thirties, but they, too, still found their person.

They don't have control vis-a-vis the men they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a late thirties woman who has observed the dating and marriage market for well...15+ years since I entered it, this is an interesting topic for me.

As women we are told that we have the power in that any man would be willing to sleep with us. I would agree that being a youngish and average looking woman means that it is exceptionally easy to find a man to date and sleep with.

However, getting commitment from men, is a whole other matter. As a marriage minded twentysomething, it was very difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. Most did not make enough income to make supporting a wife and children a feasible option, especially in DC when many of my peers were in the policy, non profit or government space.

The men were happy to hook up and date casually but almost no one had marriage in mind. My beautiful smart twentysomething girlfriends and I kept dating and getting dumped from one guy to the next.

In our thirties, the dating pool gets even more scary as now there is a shortage of men as those interested in marriage suddenly start proposing to the girl they are dating and walking down the aisle. The shift is swift and confusing. In every instance, the man who proposes has a high paying job or acquired one within the past two years of proposing. They certainly did NOT date the pretty girls in their twenties with the intention to marry...but instead...dated with the intention to marry in a very short window of time in their early twenties when they started to make money! Whoever they happened to be dating at that point...got the ring! It was like a game of musical chairs!

So you see...it appears that in the dating and marriage market...it is the men who are the choosers and the gatekeepers. They decide when to propose and to whom. A woman's future as a wife and a mother depends on whether a man finds her worthy to be his bride!

Wouldn't you try harder to meet the guys working at Capital One or Carlyle or BigLaw associates or Defense companies or Danaher or Marriott HQ or any of the other companies that pay real $$$s?

Because those guys have horrible schedules and tons of travel. It's not appealing.

Personally I would go for a nice GS-11/13 with promotion potential.

You don't sound like OP however.

I'm not at all like OP. Here are my key points.

1) Get your head around the logistsics being a single mother by choice, that way you won't think a man is necessary. Did that in college. The lack of desperation is really important here.

2) Date to marry. If anyone's not a good match, no matter how nice he is, bid him farewell. It's better to be single. And don't conceal this-- the goal is to run off anyone who isn't also dating to marry. I don't know why OP says it's difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. They might not want it right that moment, but there are plenty who do want it in their mid-thirties.

3) Don't date people who have non-family-friendly jobs. This means BigLaw partner track, consulting, anything really secretive, anything with terrible hours or too much travel or that doesn't have a suitable earnings trajectory. Figure out who's on track for a job that pays well enough and also allows time for a family, and date those guys.

4) Be marriage material. Don't act or dress tacky, don't get drunk, have a good career of your own and save money, pursue a MA or MBA or JD or whatever. Keep your eye on the long term. Don't have your life on hold-- go ahead and buy a condo if you like. This will be appealing to them!

What's a real-world example of this job (I guess understanding everyone has their own definition fo a job that "pays well enough")?

3 is a way to get non-Alist guys -- I don't mean type A -- I mean smart, ambitious guys -- they will go for the jobs you do not like. The guys that are left -- what you call the "well enough" guys are a combo of not smart, not serious, have issues that women on DCUM talk about all the time, who in 20 years will never make enough for you. The guys you do not like are the ones that women should target.

Oh please. I'm very happily married to someone who would never want one of those jobs, is plenty smart and serious, makes more than enough money, and is a great and present father. I would be miserable as a BigLaw wife. Ugh.

Why do you think you would be miserable as a BigLaw wife? Just curious - as I am one. Never been miserable. I would be miserable with what I see as the description of Biglaw life that was just not DH's experience.

Because I was a BigLaw associate in 2008 and saw how miserable everyone was and the losses the partners took. Because I really like my kids to have a father who is present and available (not saying yours isn't, it's just not the norm-- or maybe we define those things differently). Because I don't like having to go to events. Because I'm more attracted to guys who are trying to make a difference in the world, as long as they're sensible about it, and I don't really feel the need for that level of money in general.

I was a Biglaw partner in 2008 -- what losses are you talking about? 2008 was a good year -- things happened too late to make a bad year and 2009 was a blow out year because the second half was so great -- what losses did the partners suffer? My DW goes to no events and never has -- I have a lot of time for the kids -- in fact more time in a lot of key ways than my DW -- but I have learned that my experience may not be like others. I never was an associate - clerkships right to Fed with promotions and high impact cases and then to partner.

The financial crisis, widespread layoffs, Heller Ehrman, Thelen, Dewey... Lots of firms lost significant valuation and the partners had to eat the losses. Many associates were shown the door, partners quietly fired or de-equitized, and 2008 grads were given severance and never even started work. Sounds like you avoided it but believe me, it was traumatic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/decades-biggest-law-firm-collapses-2009-12#thacher-proffitt-8

Sounds like he was FedSoc and had a greased path.

What is FedSoc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a man, my impression is that there is such an undercurrent of control seeking behavior by many of the posters in this thread.

Just driven women, who can’t organically enjoy casual dating, but are heat-seeking-missile focused on finding the tallest, richest mate, who would then most likely be pushy wives in the marriage.

I agree. Notice the detailed discussion about how a man making $90k is OK, but $80k is not, unless he's in his 20's. And a GS-9 is OK but not a GS-8, etc.

It's like they are shopping for pieces of meat. I've never heard men rate women like that.

Wouldn't the lack of ambition be a red flag? Maybe there is ambition as GS 8 or 9 could be law enforcement and they will move higher and may have real ambitions in LE and outside.

You do not have to be a doctor or a lawyer and I am a guy so what do I know but a guy that did not want to be at top of their job reasonably quickly would be a red flag that there is something off.

[Anonymous]

Who holds the power in the marriage dating market?

Probably the narcissist conman. Suss those out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a late thirties woman who has observed the dating and marriage market for well...15+ years since I entered it, this is an interesting topic for me.

As women we are told that we have the power in that any man would be willing to sleep with us. I would agree that being a youngish and average looking woman means that it is exceptionally easy to find a man to date and sleep with.

However, getting commitment from men, is a whole other matter. As a marriage minded twentysomething, it was very difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. Most did not make enough income to make supporting a wife and children a feasible option, especially in DC when many of my peers were in the policy, non profit or government space.

The men were happy to hook up and date casually but almost no one had marriage in mind. My beautiful smart twentysomething girlfriends and I kept dating and getting dumped from one guy to the next.

In our thirties, the dating pool gets even more scary as now there is a shortage of men as those interested in marriage suddenly start proposing to the girl they are dating and walking down the aisle. The shift is swift and confusing. In every instance, the man who proposes has a high paying job or acquired one within the past two years of proposing. They certainly did NOT date the pretty girls in their twenties with the intention to marry...but instead...dated with the intention to marry in a very short window of time in their early twenties when they started to make money! Whoever they happened to be dating at that point...got the ring! It was like a game of musical chairs!

So you see...it appears that in the dating and marriage market...it is the men who are the choosers and the gatekeepers. They decide when to propose and to whom. A woman's future as a wife and a mother depends on whether a man finds her worthy to be his bride!

Wouldn't you try harder to meet the guys working at Capital One or Carlyle or BigLaw associates or Defense companies or Danaher or Marriott HQ or any of the other companies that pay real $$$s?

Because those guys have horrible schedules and tons of travel. It's not appealing.

Personally I would go for a nice GS-11/13 with promotion potential.

You don't sound like OP however.

I'm not at all like OP. Here are my key points.

1) Get your head around the logistsics being a single mother by choice, that way you won't think a man is necessary. Did that in college. The lack of desperation is really important here.

2) Date to marry. If anyone's not a good match, no matter how nice he is, bid him farewell. It's better to be single. And don't conceal this-- the goal is to run off anyone who isn't also dating to marry. I don't know why OP says it's difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. They might not want it right that moment, but there are plenty who do want it in their mid-thirties.

3) Don't date people who have non-family-friendly jobs. This means BigLaw partner track, consulting, anything really secretive, anything with terrible hours or too much travel or that doesn't have a suitable earnings trajectory. Figure out who's on track for a job that pays well enough and also allows time for a family, and date those guys.

4) Be marriage material. Don't act or dress tacky, don't get drunk, have a good career of your own and save money, pursue a MA or MBA or JD or whatever. Keep your eye on the long term. Don't have your life on hold-- go ahead and buy a condo if you like. This will be appealing to them!

What's a real-world example of this job (I guess understanding everyone has their own definition fo a job that "pays well enough")?

3 is a way to get non-Alist guys -- I don't mean type A -- I mean smart, ambitious guys -- they will go for the jobs you do not like. The guys that are left -- what you call the "well enough" guys are a combo of not smart, not serious, have issues that women on DCUM talk about all the time, who in 20 years will never make enough for you. The guys you do not like are the ones that women should target.

Oh please. I'm very happily married to someone who would never want one of those jobs, is plenty smart and serious, makes more than enough money, and is a great and present father. I would be miserable as a BigLaw wife. Ugh.

Why do you think you would be miserable as a BigLaw wife? Just curious - as I am one. Never been miserable. I would be miserable with what I see as the description of Biglaw life that was just not DH's experience.

Because I was a BigLaw associate in 2008 and saw how miserable everyone was and the losses the partners took. Because I really like my kids to have a father who is present and available (not saying yours isn't, it's just not the norm-- or maybe we define those things differently). Because I don't like having to go to events. Because I'm more attracted to guys who are trying to make a difference in the world, as long as they're sensible about it, and I don't really feel the need for that level of money in general.

I was a Biglaw partner in 2008 -- what losses are you talking about? 2008 was a good year -- things happened too late to make a bad year and 2009 was a blow out year because the second half was so great -- what losses did the partners suffer? My DW goes to no events and never has -- I have a lot of time for the kids -- in fact more time in a lot of key ways than my DW -- but I have learned that my experience may not be like others. I never was an associate - clerkships right to Fed with promotions and high impact cases and then to partner.

The financial crisis, widespread layoffs, Heller Ehrman, Thelen, Dewey... Lots of firms lost significant valuation and the partners had to eat the losses. Many associates were shown the door, partners quietly fired or de-equitized, and 2008 grads were given severance and never even started work. Sounds like you avoided it but believe me, it was traumatic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/decades-biggest-law-firm-collapses-2009-12#thacher-proffitt-8

Sounds like he was FedSoc and had a greased path.

What is FedSoc?

Federalist Society. The best possible group you can join if you want a prosperous, smooth, easy career out of law school. You always have tons of parachutes and opportunities if you flame out anywhere. It’s like the finest fraternity on steroids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a late thirties woman who has observed the dating and marriage market for well...15+ years since I entered it, this is an interesting topic for me.

As women we are told that we have the power in that any man would be willing to sleep with us. I would agree that being a youngish and average looking woman means that it is exceptionally easy to find a man to date and sleep with.

However, getting commitment from men, is a whole other matter. As a marriage minded twentysomething, it was very difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. Most did not make enough income to make supporting a wife and children a feasible option, especially in DC when many of my peers were in the policy, non profit or government space.

The men were happy to hook up and date casually but almost no one had marriage in mind. My beautiful smart twentysomething girlfriends and I kept dating and getting dumped from one guy to the next.

In our thirties, the dating pool gets even more scary as now there is a shortage of men as those interested in marriage suddenly start proposing to the girl they are dating and walking down the aisle. The shift is swift and confusing. In every instance, the man who proposes has a high paying job or acquired one within the past two years of proposing. They certainly did NOT date the pretty girls in their twenties with the intention to marry...but instead...dated with the intention to marry in a very short window of time in their early twenties when they started to make money! Whoever they happened to be dating at that point...got the ring! It was like a game of musical chairs!

So you see...it appears that in the dating and marriage market...it is the men who are the choosers and the gatekeepers. They decide when to propose and to whom. A woman's future as a wife and a mother depends on whether a man finds her worthy to be his bride!

Wouldn't you try harder to meet the guys working at Capital One or Carlyle or BigLaw associates or Defense companies or Danaher or Marriott HQ or any of the other companies that pay real $$$s?

Because those guys have horrible schedules and tons of travel. It's not appealing.

Personally I would go for a nice GS-11/13 with promotion potential.

You don't sound like OP however.

I'm not at all like OP. Here are my key points.

1) Get your head around the logistsics being a single mother by choice, that way you won't think a man is necessary. Did that in college. The lack of desperation is really important here.

2) Date to marry. If anyone's not a good match, no matter how nice he is, bid him farewell. It's better to be single. And don't conceal this-- the goal is to run off anyone who isn't also dating to marry. I don't know why OP says it's difficult to come across any twentysomething or thirtysomething men who wanted to marry and have children. They might not want it right that moment, but there are plenty who do want it in their mid-thirties.

3) Don't date people who have non-family-friendly jobs. This means BigLaw partner track, consulting, anything really secretive, anything with terrible hours or too much travel or that doesn't have a suitable earnings trajectory. Figure out who's on track for a job that pays well enough and also allows time for a family, and date those guys.

4) Be marriage material. Don't act or dress tacky, don't get drunk, have a good career of your own and save money, pursue a MA or MBA or JD or whatever. Keep your eye on the long term. Don't have your life on hold-- go ahead and buy a condo if you like. This will be appealing to them!

What's a real-world example of this job (I guess understanding everyone has their own definition fo a job that "pays well enough")?

3 is a way to get non-Alist guys -- I don't mean type A -- I mean smart, ambitious guys -- they will go for the jobs you do not like. The guys that are left -- what you call the "well enough" guys are a combo of not smart, not serious, have issues that women on DCUM talk about all the time, who in 20 years will never make enough for you. The guys you do not like are the ones that women should target.

Oh please. I'm very happily married to someone who would never want one of those jobs, is plenty smart and serious, makes more than enough money, and is a great and present father. I would be miserable as a BigLaw wife. Ugh.

Why do you think you would be miserable as a BigLaw wife? Just curious - as I am one. Never been miserable. I would be miserable with what I see as the description of Biglaw life that was just not DH's experience.

Because I was a BigLaw associate in 2008 and saw how miserable everyone was and the losses the partners took. Because I really like my kids to have a father who is present and available (not saying yours isn't, it's just not the norm-- or maybe we define those things differently). Because I don't like having to go to events. Because I'm more attracted to guys who are trying to make a difference in the world, as long as they're sensible about it, and I don't really feel the need for that level of money in general.

I was a Biglaw partner in 2008 -- what losses are you talking about? 2008 was a good year -- things happened too late to make a bad year and 2009 was a blow out year because the second half was so great -- what losses did the partners suffer? My DW goes to no events and never has -- I have a lot of time for the kids -- in fact more time in a lot of key ways than my DW -- but I have learned that my experience may not be like others. I never was an associate - clerkships right to Fed with promotions and high impact cases and then to partner.

You must have been a bankruptcy partner, lol!

[Anonymous]

Ultimately, it's a scarcity issue. For whatever reason, there are fewer and fewer marriageable men. For every reasonably tall, fit, kind, funny, well-educated, responsible, relationship-oriented man there are going to be forty women that really want to meet him. There are lots of very attractive women. But there are very few available men who have the attributes that most women care about. So the power is with those men, particularly as people get older.