Shortage of "economically attractive" men reason for marriage decline according to new study

[Anonymous]

NP here - can I just say some of the goof looking highs earner men are narcissistic jerks? I sometimes wish I had married a non narcissist normal guy. I make plenty and even my kids comment on how rude my Marc DH is... money isn’t everything.

[Anonymous]

I know a few very wealthy guys. Entitled, arrogant, fat, a-holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reactions here are a bit isolated. DcUm does not represent the US. A women making $40k will not marry someone making less than her who also can’t help in the house. Most families have to have both parents work full time. No one stays at home to take care of kids unless one spouse makes a lot of money. That is not common in most of the US.

The article doesn't mention it's only applicable to high COL area. In general, wherever women live, she doesn't want to carry the burden of the majority of house chores and childcare while at the same time being the primary caregiver. How many men would volunteer to do both?

What does it matter what you think women want? Seriously there are only a few men who are deemed “economically attractive”. Women have to compete for them. The “economically attractive” men do not have to compete for women. A man can be fat, old and ugly but have 300 million in the bank. Women will line up to get a chance at him. Lol if a man is making 500k plus he is in demand. So continue to make all these demands and say this is the way it has to be. It really does not matter. Many women will gladly do all the major household chores and childcare if they land a rich husband. They will happily be a SAHM and never work again.

The egos here are unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

The last “economically attractive” guy I dated - also the last guy I dated - was a high-earning exec. He was also “physically attractive” and for this reason will never settle down. He *says* he wants to be married but is so picky no one will ever be quite right. In the meantime, he has plenty of cash to throw around, and is tall, athletic, has good hair, and is good in bed - don’t see him throwing in the towel on the single life....ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reactions here are a bit isolated. DcUm does not represent the US. A women making $40k will not marry someone making less than her who also can’t help in the house. Most families have to have both parents work full time. No one stays at home to take care of kids unless one spouse makes a lot of money. That is not common in most of the US.

The article doesn't mention it's only applicable to high COL area. In general, wherever women live, she doesn't want to carry the burden of the majority of house chores and childcare while at the same time being the primary caregiver. How many men would volunteer to do both?

What does it matter what you think women want? Seriously there are only a few men who are deemed “economically attractive”. Women have to compete for them. The “economically attractive” men do not have to compete for women. A man can be fat, old and ugly but have 300 million in the bank. Women will line up to get a chance at him. Lol if a man is making 500k plus he is in demand. So continue to make all these demands and say this is the way it has to be. It really does not matter. Many women will gladly do all the major household chores and childcare if they land a rich husband. They will happily be a SAHM and never work again.

The egos here are unbelievable.

Why is it egotistical to want a life partner? Have you considered that maybe some women want to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reactions here are a bit isolated. DcUm does not represent the US. A women making $40k will not marry someone making less than her who also can’t help in the house. Most families have to have both parents work full time. No one stays at home to take care of kids unless one spouse makes a lot of money. That is not common in most of the US.

The article doesn't mention it's only applicable to high COL area. In general, wherever women live, she doesn't want to carry the burden of the majority of house chores and childcare while at the same time being the primary caregiver. How many men would volunteer to do both?

What does it matter what you think women want? Seriously there are only a few men who are deemed “economically attractive”. Women have to compete for them. The “economically attractive” men do not have to compete for women. A man can be fat, old and ugly but have 300 million in the bank. Women will line up to get a chance at him. Lol if a man is making 500k plus he is in demand. So continue to make all these demands and say this is the way it has to be. It really does not matter. Many women will gladly do all the major household chores and childcare if they land a rich husband. They will happily be a SAHM and never work again.

The egos here are unbelievable.

Honestly this. Sure, there are outliers (it’s DCUM) - but this is the general truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

Men do it all the time. Why not? If you meet somebody you love?

I think a lot of them aren't meeting someone they live. I doubt they are dating these economically attractive men either n

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here - can I just say some of the goof looking highs earner men are narcissistic jerks? I sometimes wish I had married a non narcissist normal guy. I make plenty and even my kids comment on how rude my Marc DH is... money isn’t everything.

Plenty of broke guys are rude. Just sayin...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reactions here are a bit isolated. DcUm does not represent the US. A women making $40k will not marry someone making less than her who also can’t help in the house. Most families have to have both parents work full time. No one stays at home to take care of kids unless one spouse makes a lot of money. That is not common in most of the US.

The article doesn't mention it's only applicable to high COL area. In general, wherever women live, she doesn't want to carry the burden of the majority of house chores and childcare while at the same time being the primary caregiver. How many men would volunteer to do both?

What does it matter what you think women want? Seriously there are only a few men who are deemed “economically attractive”. Women have to compete for them. The “economically attractive” men do not have to compete for women. A man can be fat, old and ugly but have 300 million in the bank. Women will line up to get a chance at him. Lol if a man is making 500k plus he is in demand. So continue to make all these demands and say this is the way it has to be. It really does not matter. Many women will gladly do all the major household chores and childcare if they land a rich husband. They will happily be a SAHM and never work again.

The egos here are unbelievable.

Why is it egotistical to want a life partner? Have you considered that maybe some women want to work?

Why is it so hard to understand that high earning men do not want to deal with someone else’s job? They want someone who can support them in theirs.

The 50/50 split you advocate for barely works when a family needs 2 incomes to survive. It does not work when they very clearly only need one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know a few very wealthy guys. Entitled, arrogant, fat, a-holes.

You say this as if there are zero entitled, arrogant fat jerks who are poor. Statistically speaking, poor men are more likely to be obese, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

This was very true as an AA woman when I was in my 20s. I and many other AA women I knew were college educated by our mid-20s and reluctant to be what my great-aunt called “unevenly yoked” to a man who did not yet have the ability to help build a MC lifestyle. I’m happy to see that attitude seems to have vanished among the AA Millennials I know. I think young AA woman who want to marry are following the example of Michelle Obama and selecting a man with potential that they can help reach a higher level. [b]There are so many diamonds in the rough. It took a bad marriage to a man who ticked all the boxes to teach me that happiness isn’t the house, cars, and vacations —they can be just a special type of hell. If I’d meet my second DH when he was a twenty-something country boy enlisted in the Marines, I would have never seriously considered marrying him. Today, he is my soulmate.

??? On what planet would Barack Obama have been considered economically unattractive? You really think Michelle was dating down when she met him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reactions here are a bit isolated. DcUm does not represent the US. A women making $40k will not marry someone making less than her who also can’t help in the house. Most families have to have both parents work full time. No one stays at home to take care of kids unless one spouse makes a lot of money. That is not common in most of the US.

The article doesn't mention it's only applicable to high COL area. In general, wherever women live, she doesn't want to carry the burden of the majority of house chores and childcare while at the same time being the primary caregiver. How many men would volunteer to do both?

What does it matter what you think women want? Seriously there are only a few men who are deemed “economically attractive”. Women have to compete for them. The “economically attractive” men do not have to compete for women. A man can be fat, old and ugly but have 300 million in the bank. Women will line up to get a chance at him. Lol if a man is making 500k plus he is in demand. So continue to make all these demands and say this is the way it has to be. It really does not matter. Many women will gladly do all the major household chores and childcare if they land a rich husband. They will happily be a SAHM and never work again.

The egos here are unbelievable.

Why is it egotistical to want a life partner? Have you considered that maybe some women want to work?

Why is it so hard to understand that high earning men do not want to deal with someone else’s job? They want someone who can support them in theirs.

The 50/50 split you advocate for barely works when a family needs 2 incomes to survive. It does not work when they very clearly only need one.

I’m married to a very high-earning man who absolutely supports my career. He supported me when I wanted to go back to school and is happy to have an equitable partnership. I’m sorry your experiences have been such that you view all relationships as transactions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

Men do it all the time. Why not? If you meet somebody you love?

Female here who has NEVER thought of it this way, but now realize I should have. However, the man-child + childbearing thing still holds.

The men who have historically married a woman with no income/assets/earning potential did so with the expectation they'd get some amalgam of a domestic servant out of the deal: definitely all childcare, likely most if not all cooking and cleaning. Women who marry "down" economically cannot expect the same. It's not the same calculus.

You don't know men that care for their children and cook... truthfully I don't know anybody that cleans... men or women.

Plus I know a ton of women that care for the children, with help, don't cook, just order in.

So basically men can't/won't take care of their own children is the reason?

You don't know anyone who cleans? What do their houses look like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s as simple as women having more choices now and not having to settle for a man, because a woman can provide for herself and get a spend donor if she wants a kid.

There are several million unmarried men in China who are looking for brides LOL they can join the club with the “loser” husband material category in the US.

Women don’t have to settle anymore because we have our own property.

There are a ton of exceptions to the norm, though, on these rules. I am an outlier. Was breadwinner in first marriage to man child, divorced him on good terms. In my 30s with several kids I remarried a handsome-high-earner man in his 40s who had been used to having all women chase hi except ME. He had to pursue me, because I was self sufficient and Lready had kids and my own $400k paycheck. I think my confidence and “don’t need you for your money” attitude made him chase me and propos quickly. Women need to own their value and should not feel like they can’t meet a quality man just because they are single mom in their 30s.

But statistically there are very few single women who are actually having children with sperm donors. In reality most of these women remain childless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.