Do women have a hard time when they marry down?

[Anonymous]

My friends and family said I was....well...I do not even want to dignify the phrase to my husband, because I value him as a human being. I decided that my faith values was the priority and to find a man who had a similar faith goal and willingness to work life out with me. I work part time and make more than him when he is working 40+ hours a week. We enjoy life, we like road trips to local stuff, we like saving up to travel to Canada, Germany, Egypt. He likes to roast his own coffee and is an avid reader, I like chatting with folks I meet at the metro, inviting neighbors over for brunch on the occasional weekend. There was some things where he was too upset over material stuff, like someone stealing a bike that can be replaced, I lose car keys that can be replaced for $70 etc. But overtime, he has grown to appreciate that the cost for peace of mind is worth it, people and relationships are more important that the occasional object getting broken by the kids, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's easier for men to "marry down" than it is for women. That's why you see old rich guys with young, often uneducated, women. The opposite is less common. Even highly-successful, rich, women prefer to marry even richer men, if possible.

There are a million threads on DCUM started by women who are disappointed by their lower-SES husbands. They talk of "losing respect" for their husband's career trajectory or earnings, or apparent lack of refinement. Sometimes his "trashy" inlaws are a problem too. It seems like women are just wired to want a provider, even if they don't necessarily need one.

This is true.

Men don’t care about a woman’s origins or social status. Once married a nobody woman acquired the social status of her husband. And this is the problem. An UMC woman who marries into a LMC family will feel the loss in social status. Unless her LMc born husband is outstandingly rich and successful. Even then, redneck in laws and distant cousins can be a problem.

That's not true. Men may not care about how much money a woman makes, but they very much care about her level of education because no one wants a dimwit raising their children. And if they don't care about her family, they learn to regret it later.

Go look at the NYT engagement section and compare backgrounds and education levels of bride/groom.

The NYT engagement section is a well-known joke for status-obsessed twits. Of course those guys are interested in a woman's socioeconomic status.

Not only this but the majority of the section is submitted by the couples themselves. A lot of self-selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's easier for men to "marry down" than it is for women. That's why you see old rich guys with young, often uneducated, women. The opposite is less common. Even highly-successful, rich, women prefer to marry even richer men, if possible.

There are a million threads on DCUM started by women who are disappointed by their lower-SES husbands. They talk of "losing respect" for their husband's career trajectory or earnings, or apparent lack of refinement. Sometimes his "trashy" inlaws are a problem too. It seems like women are just wired to want a provider, even if they don't necessarily need one.

This is true.

Men don’t care about a woman’s origins or social status. Once married a nobody woman acquired the social status of her husband. And this is the problem. An UMC woman who marries into a LMC family will feel the loss in social status. Unless her LMc born husband is outstandingly rich and successful. Even then, redneck in laws and distant cousins can be a problem.

That's not true. Men may not care about how much money a woman makes, but they very much care about her level of education because no one wants a dimwit raising their children. And if they don't care about her family, they learn to regret it later.

Go look at the NYT engagement section and compare backgrounds and education levels of bride/groom.

The NYT engagement section is a well-known joke for status-obsessed twits. Of course those guys are interested in a woman's socioeconomic status.

Not only this but the majority of the section is submitted by the couples themselves. A lot of self-selection.

The NYT engagement section gets way more submissions then they publish... so the NYT decides whether it is worth printing. Not self-selection.