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

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

No.  I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do.  I make $300.  If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table.  He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution.  I want equitable.[/quote]

Man here, I make money in your range (and I am married so I have no dog in this fight) but this is interesting to me.

The 2% of men earn 300k plus and that number is even smaller for those age 45 and under (not sure your age).  So you eliminate 98% of the dating pool, and now you are competing for 2% of men, almost all of whom are married.

While I understand women do more of the second shift stuff, it surprises me women can shrug off the need for companionship so easily (few women I know are satisfied with casual romps).  There has to be more to life than bean counting. [/quote]
DP.. of course companionship is important, but what good is that companionship if just becomes another burden to bear, as in, the woman is the default parent and the primary bread winner. That leads to bitter resentment and frustration on the woman's part. We see that play out on dcum, but I'm pretty sure this is playing out across the country.

I think once you have kids, it changes things.  When we were dating, at one point, I was making $200K, and DH was making $120K.  That didn't bother me. But once kids arrived, I wanted to take some time off to be with our baby.  So, the financial burden fell on DH, who by that time, was making about $180K.  But we planned on all this. We saved a lot so that I could be a sahm for a year.  But, if DH did not make enough, I would not have been able to take that time off. I'm really thankful that I was in a position to do this.  I cherish that time now that DC is 14.  I am now back FT, and DH and I make about the same.  DH has taken on more of the mental load of parenting. He didn't before, and that was a cause of lots of stress an resentment on my part.

Women have more choices now than ever before.   Think about switching positions - if you knew you were going to have to be the default parent AND primary breadwinner, would you take that all on?
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics