Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Tom Hanks & Rita Wilson have been married forever it seems.
Goldie + Kurt are not married but seem to have a solid, long-term relationship.
It all is based on luck.
Not beauty, charm or brains.
It is absolutely not all luck. IME the women who marry best are assertive go-getters with high self esteem and somewhat cutthroat and narcissistic. Then there is another tier of substantive, accomplished women who married medium guys and made it work. I have several friends who are incredible, successful, accomplished people (doctors, entrepreneurs) who do most of the work of parenthood and are the glue keeping their marriage together to guys who earn and contribute less in every way, but who are decedent and faithful and whom they decided to love. This second their are IMO much finer people than the first in every way.
so basically women who don't marry well have no one to blame but themselves. what a bunch of nonsense.
I mean they can definitely also blame the men on the other thread freaking out about the idea that a woman wants to date a man with a decent salary. If that’s the message they’re getting during the dating years I understand how so many people wind up married to underemployed man-children— looking for anything more is portrayed as gold digging.
Totally agree with this. I definitely spent a lot of my 20's feeling like
I shouldn't judge a guy by where he went to school, his emotional stability, and/or his job/earning potential. When I finally decided to stop dating guys with untreated addictions who treated me horribly when I was 28, I met my husband who at the time was 33 and making over $200K,
went to Harvard, had a lot of earning potential, was in great shape/handsome, and was emotionally available and wanted a marriage/family. I am so happy that I did not settle!
When my daughters are old enough I will definitely let them know that raising your standards is the best way to get a guy. As a woman, I found that I had the best options when I was in great shape (everyone has a different body, but look the best that YOU CAN and do your best to accept/love yourself) and really made dating a priority. It helped that I went to a good school and had a prestigious job, but those factors won't make or break anything. I think that there is nothing wrong with dating around a bit in your 20s, so that you have a good sense of what is out there and what you want. I dated jerks, I dated unemployed guys with zero passion for life and hedgefunders with gambling addictions and by the time I found my husband I knew what I wanted and I knew how to get it. Still, I wish that I learned a little bit earlier to value myself.
you should cross post to the college forum where people post that every kid will find the school for them and that prestige doesn't matter
I think I'd be flamed! I went to an Ivy for undergrad and grad and finally was comfortable admitting that I wanted my partner to have a similar pedigree. Everyone has different criteria. For me actually being real with myself about what I wanted in a partner helped me find a partner. That's the takeaway that I wanted to convey. Own your preferences! Have realistic expectations for your partner (which means, understand how what you bring to the table will influence the partners you attract) and then own your preferences and go out and date, date, date! And when you find a guy that you like, lock him down.
What if the person didn't go Ivy but went to a top-40 school, and then grad school, got a doctorate and then taught at another top-40 school. Then went to a Top-4 consulting firm. Is that good enough to make up for not being Ivy?
My BFF's smitten with a guy like this. He seems like a very sweet guy, but he talks about how his Dad was a plumber and he went on calls with the Dad from third-grade on, and how his Mom was a secretary. He's almost like one of those strivers who knows they're just not QUITE good enough, that they'll never QUITE fit in. He doesn't drink, so he's a bit awkward in social settings. He acts almost like an amateur, like he's never been there if my BFF brings him to have cocktails at a gathering on the harbor. I mean, even if you don't drink, get a club soda with lime or something and try to fit in. And please don't tell us about the type of shower drain you want if you're adding a bathroom in the basement so that you don't get backflooding
.
The people who "ascend" above their status often flame out as they get into their upper 30s and 40s because they don't know how to function in the executive suite, boardrooms and other elite settings. They have skills but they're not enjoyable to work with. They accidentally act like know-it-alls and that they're trying to prove themselves, so there's always this insecurity and people want to work with people who are confident.
Whereas when you go to an Ivy, you've been with the best day after day after day, so it's old hat. That's the difference. So long as your parents were able to expose you to good opportunities growing up and so long as you're able to refine your social skills in finals clubs and the like, you've just got a leg up that people who haven't been there just don't understand. I'm afraid my BFF doesn't see that, and then she'll either be stuck in a disappointing marriage in her late 40s or will divorce at a rough age to find someone who can treat her to the living standard she deserves.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}