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 [b]I understand women do more of the second shift[/b] stuff, it [b]surprises me women can shrug off the need for companionship[/b] so easily (few women I know are satisfied with casual romps).  There has to be more to life than bean counting. [/quote]

You are essentially implying that women should pay for companionship by accepting a greater burden on the second shift.  Women are no longer willing to do that.  Asking for equality on the second shift isn't "bean-counting," it's asking to be accept as a full and equal human being.  When you call it "bean-counting" you imply that women's demands to be unequal are some kind of unreasonable accounting problem over small differences.  Women don't see it that way.

FYI, women also have a much broader array of opportunities for "companionship" outside of marriage than you imagine (romps, FWB, long term or medium term relationships outside of marriage) and "casual romps" are the exact type of companionship many want.  In fact, many women, especially older women, want to be single into old age because being married implies, both culturally and legally, yet another second shift -- taking care of the man as he ages.  I have seen many women over 50 leave, without remorse, long term unmarried relationships when the men fell chronically ill because the women did not view it as their job to be the man's caretaker. [/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