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][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]

[b]You are essentially implying that women should pay for companionship by accepting a greater burden on the second shift. [/b]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]

I really agree with the bolded, and I also find it very offputting how systemic overburdening of one partner is so casually minimized as "bean counting" and "nagging."

All studies show that men actually do relatively *less* household work when they are un/underemployed, then when they are employed, as the woman is forced to overcompensate for the reversal of traditional gender roles. Just one of many examples: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/12/housework-men-assert-masculinity. Except for the rare (though hopefully increasingly more common) situation where a Dad actively wants to be a SAHD and takes pride in doing so (and I do know one or two examples), if would be idiocy for a woman to enter into a marriage with a partner who was not willing/able to at least be a roughly equal breadwinner.  PP's idea that women have to accept default (lifelong) drudgery in exchange for any companionship is incredibly problematic.[/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