Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's upsetting for women who have worked so hard academically and sacrificed for their careers to learn that most men would be just as happy if you had been a yoga instructor or an ES teacher.

But it's true.

Most men want smart (not genius smart, just up on current events smart) pretty, sweet, affectionate, care-takers for wives. The details are not important.

A man who would want a big-law partner for a wife is very rare.

The PP who said that UMC men end up with these women b/c the women pursue these men was spot on.

FWIW, I am UMC, went to an Ivy and married an Ivy grad (both undergrad and law school) and I can tell you he would not give two hoots if I became a dog-walker tomorrow. He simply wants me to be happy, b/c when I'm happy his life is wonderful. That's out men.

And no it's not sad. It's sweet and supportive. Most women would freak out if their high-earning husbands stepped off that track.

You are a living example of what you're trying to disprove, and it's sort of funny how you don't see it.

OK, your husband may not mind if you became a dogwalker tomorrow. But: you are UMC. You went to an Ivy. As did your husband. This shared experience ensured that you and your husband have intellectual and educational parity, and that your family probably had similar expectations toward your education. You two speak and think on the same intellectual plane. Ergo, you two are a living example of assortative mating. The fact that you may not have a job currently or in future is irrelevant. You and your husband are of the same class. Your husband and an LC waitress would not have been.

This is your view of why their marriage works, and its a totally legitimate view, but also one much more common for women to hold than men. Her husband probably thinks it works because she is nice and affectionate and he feels respected. You may think he should care about their shared backgrounds, but he likely doesn't.

When OP said "would you date a woman who did not have a real job?," I doubt OP was asking "as a statistical matter, to men tend to end up with women from different backgrounds to them?" OP was asking "do many men give a crap what their significant others do for a living in the abstract? and the answer is "No, most of us don't."

The thing is that you are trying to distill this to a single question, and it's a lot more nuanced than that. Jobs are an outgrowth of education, which is an outgrowth of background and family expectations. This thread shows that people conflate background with ambition, and it is my experience that men may not care about the level of ambition (and in fact, may prefer a lower level of ambition), but they do care about shared background and education in the mother of their children. Yes, I'm a woman, but I also have a husband, who is very open that my education and intellect were a key reason why he married me - because he wanted his children raised by someone with these qualities. Background sets expectations of how things ought to be done, and shared expectations of important things are a huge success factor for marriages. And while we'll never know why the PP's husband thinks their marriage works, I'm sure he wouldn't swap her for someone who is just as nice an affectionate but didn't go to college at all.

Anonymous wrote:Ergo, you two are a living example of assortative mating. The fact that you may not have a job currently or in future is irrelevant. You and your husband are of the same class. Your husband and an LC waitress would not have been.

That's because who men date is a function of who they meet in their daily lives (or are introduced to) and how interested those women seem in pursuing a relationship. Those will mostly be women with similar backgrounds. It doesn't mean that if a man is pursued by a yoga instructor he finds attractive, he's going to nix her if she isn't in graduate school. I think the OP was asking about the latter question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's upsetting for women who have worked so hard academically and sacrificed for their careers to learn that most men would be just as happy if you had been a yoga instructor or an ES teacher.

But it's true.

Most men want smart (not genius smart, just up on current events smart) pretty, sweet, affectionate, care-takers for wives. The details are not important.

A man who would want a big-law partner for a wife is very rare.

The PP who said that UMC men end up with these women b/c the women pursue these men was spot on.

FWIW, I am UMC, went to an Ivy and married an Ivy grad (both undergrad and law school) and I can tell you he would not give two hoots if I became a dog-walker tomorrow. He simply wants me to be happy, b/c when I'm happy his life is wonderful. That's out men.

And no it's not sad. It's sweet and supportive. Most women would freak out if their high-earning husbands stepped off that track.

You are a living example of what you're trying to disprove, and it's sort of funny how you don't see it.

OK, your husband may not mind if you became a dogwalker tomorrow. But: you are UMC. You went to an Ivy. As did your husband. This shared experience ensured that you and your husband have intellectual and educational parity, and that your family probably had similar expectations toward your education. You two speak and think on the same intellectual plane. Ergo, you two are a living example of assortative mating. The fact that you may not have a job currently or in future is irrelevant. You and your husband are of the same class. Your husband and an LC waitress would not have been.

This is your view of why their marriage works, and its a totally legitimate view, but also one much more common for women to hold than men. Her husband probably thinks it works because she is nice and affectionate and he feels respected. You may think he should care about their shared backgrounds, but he likely doesn't.

When OP said "would you date a woman who did not have a real job?," I doubt OP was asking "as a statistical matter, to men tend to end up with women from different backgrounds to them?" OP was asking "do many men give a crap what their significant others do for a living in the abstract? and the answer is "No, most of us don't."

Anonymous wrote:It certainly depends per person. I think the average Joe shmoe would only care about if the girl is hot,nice and wants to have sex. It doesn't matter if she is a hooters waitress or wmata driver.

Men from upper middle class and above date their peers. Girls who have gone to private/prep school and then a top liberal arts school or an IVY. Usually these girls are very ambitious too. They will go on to apply to law schools/med schools/ grad schools. The least ambitious ones will get a masters in teacher education or international development. They will then graduate and work in prestigious but low paying jobs. The high achievers will be top lawyers/doctors etc.

Its pretty rare for a truly well-bred UMC/UC guy to marry very down. He may marry a girl who is"writing a novel" and living off her parents funds and then because a SAHM. But they won't date a hooters waitress.

I'm amazed that you know exactly how an entire subculture operates.

My husband also has said that he wouldn't have married a woman without a white collar, professional job. Unfortunately, that's carried over to causing a great deal of stress in our relationship due to the fact that I have had (or one of us had to - and it ended up being me) take a lower-paying job with less hours to care for a child with a chronic illness.

Those are real jobs? Seriously, what do you consider them, fake jobs?

My husband never dated anyone who wasn't in a professional job (or in school for such a job). I am pretty sure he would never have dated a career nanny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think men have a problem with a woman having the jobs you described, then you REALLY don't understand men.

+1.

- Man (BigLaw Partner)

Do you actually know anyone in BigLaw who married a waitress? I guess I agree with this in theory, but every high achieving man I know married a well-educated woman. The only exceptions I can think of are people in my parents generation (55 and older), and people who met as teenagers and kind of mapped out their lives together where she supported him through law school/medical school with one of the above jobs and the intent that she would SAH when he finished.

I know a guy in Big Law who married a nanny. They've been married for about 10 years & she's a SAHM now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men would you date a woman who was:

- a waitress
- a retail sales associate
- a nanny

and other such jobs. Why or why not?

Guy here. I have a friend whose married and she's a nanny. Makes decent money.

Personally I wouldn't. She has to have a career otherwise I'm not interested. That's important to me so I married a woman who has a good job and career like I do. To each their own I guess

You should date men.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's upsetting for women who have worked so hard academically and sacrificed for their careers to learn that most men would be just as happy if you had been a yoga instructor or an ES teacher.

But it's true.

Most men want smart (not genius smart, just up on current events smart) pretty, sweet, affectionate, care-takers for wives. The details are not important.

A man who would want a big-law partner for a wife is very rare.

The PP who said that UMC men end up with these women b/c the women pursue these men was spot on.

FWIW, I am UMC, went to an Ivy and married an Ivy grad (both undergrad and law school) and I can tell you he would not give two hoots if I became a dog-walker tomorrow. He simply wants me to be happy, b/c when I'm happy his life is wonderful. That's out men.

And no it's not sad. It's sweet and supportive. Most women would freak out if their high-earning husbands stepped off that track.

You are a living example of what you're trying to disprove, and it's sort of funny how you don't see it.

OK, your husband may not mind if you became a dogwalker tomorrow. But: you are UMC. You went to an Ivy. As did your husband. This shared experience ensured that you and your husband have intellectual and educational parity, and that your family probably had similar expectations toward your education. You two speak and think on the same intellectual plane. Ergo, you two are a living example of assortative mating. The fact that you may not have a job currently or in future is irrelevant. You and your husband are of the same class. Your husband and an LC waitress would not have been.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's upsetting for women who have worked so hard academically and sacrificed for their careers to learn that most men would be just as happy if you had been a yoga instructor or an ES teacher.

But it's true.

Most men want smart (not genius smart, just up on current events smart) pretty, sweet, affectionate, care-takers for wives. The details are not important.

A man who would want a big-law partner for a wife is very rare.

The PP who said that UMC men end up with these women b/c the women pursue these men was spot on.

FWIW, I am UMC, went to an Ivy and married an Ivy grad (both undergrad and law school) and I can tell you he would not give two hoots if I became a dog-walker tomorrow. He simply wants me to be happy, b/c when I'm happy his life is wonderful. That's out men.

And no it's not sad. It's sweet and supportive. Most women would freak out if their high-earning husbands stepped off that track.

This is how my husband is as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men would you date a woman who was:

- a waitress
- a retail sales associate
- a nanny

and other such jobs. Why or why not?

Depends how hot she is. I'd have sex with her, but I'd never seriously "date" her nor ever think about moving in with her or marrying her.

+1

I think it's upsetting for women who have worked so hard academically and sacrificed for their careers to learn that most men would be just as happy if you had been a yoga instructor or an ES teacher.

But it's true.

Most men want smart (not genius smart, just up on current events smart) pretty, sweet, affectionate, care-takers for wives. The details are not important.

A man who would want a big-law partner for a wife is very rare.

The PP who said that UMC men end up with these women b/c the women pursue these men was spot on.

FWIW, I am UMC, went to an Ivy and married an Ivy grad (both undergrad and law school) and I can tell you he would not give two hoots if I became a dog-walker tomorrow. He simply wants me to be happy, b/c when I'm happy his life is wonderful. That's out men.

And no it's not sad. It's sweet and supportive. Most women would freak out if their high-earning husbands stepped off that track.

Anonymous wrote:This is silly - some men want a women with a "lesser" career who will be content supporting their husband, other men want a woman who is their intellectual equal and ambitious.

Just like some women want to marry a big law partner with a big paycheck and others want to marry the middle manager who prioritizes getting home to his family.

We want spouses that will support the life and values we have

An attempt to have a reasoned nuanced debate? you must be new here.

Anonymous wrote:This is silly - some men want a women with a "lesser" career who will be content supporting their husband, other men want a woman who is their intellectual equal and ambitious.

Just like some women want to marry a big law partner with a big paycheck and others want to marry the middle manager who prioritizes getting home to his family.

We want spouses that will support the life and values we have

You are confusing ambition with intellect and education. The latter is more important, and the former doesn't matter much as long as partners agree on their roles. An educated SAHM still speaks and thinks similarly to her educated husband, and that's what important for her role as the one who shapes their children's minds and experiences.