Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just that, really “Type A” women tend to stay more fit.

It’s this

In Italy, where being fit and thin has way less to do with socioeconomics, no one cares if you are “high earning”.

Being a hot sahm is the dream/goal.

In anglo countries, due to body weight being linked to socio-economic status, interest in professional women is greater because professional women are less sloppy

Of course a ‘hot sahm’ is the dream/goal in Italy. It’s one of the least egalitarian countries in Europe. You need to look at the Scandinavian countries for gender equality. There are not looking for hot SAHMs over there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a much younger sister in her early thirties and she and nearly all of her friends are SAHM’s to men working good professional jobs. Looking at the housing turnover in my neighborhood this seems to be the case there too. So I’m not sure if your theory is accurate.

I think it also depends where you live but ultimately, the high earning lawyer plus high earning cardiologist will do better overall financially and have the most resources of their kids. In the end, I can see this being the ideal set up.

You think a kid being raised by a big law partner and a busy specialist doctor is the ideal set up? Those people are going to need a backup nanny for the main nanny, so we are gonna have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe to you its not ideal but not everyone has the same priorities as you. These kids will have infinite resources and also the ability to spring into careers that they'd like. I have plenty of people in medical school class who had parents with exact these careers and they are doing well, close with their parents, and have also these career ambitions. They also felt that their parents were able to have flexibility in their schedules as high earners. I think the idea that these careers never see their kids is outdated.

To me infinite resources plus a total lack of parental oversight is just as likely to result in a coke problem as a high achieving kid

Naw. There’s too much peer pressure in their social group for them to end up as a Coke head. Unless of course they experienced some trauma (rape, abuse) growing up.

lol Sure, you're unsupervised rich kid isn't the target demo for rich kid drugs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the ‘20s. Men are absolutely looking for high wage earning women. Women have been seeking out men who earn more for century, it should be no surprise that ultimately men we’re going to do the same.


Welcome to the mid but we’re in the mid 20s, ladies!

The big question is whether or not men are now going to do half the childcare, cooking, and housework. Based on my observations it seems like marriage has less and less to offer women, but we shall see.

+1 I'm in my early 50s, and DH does a lot around the house. He's out grocery shopping right now (he wfh) and does most of the cooking, though I do most of the meal planning.

I would not want to be married to a man who didn't do a lot around the house but also expects me to earn the same as him. I'd rather be single.

BTW I do earn about the same as him.

I tell my DD to not marry a man who is not willing to help around the house, and I tell my DS to not marry a woman who is not willing to work out of the house. DS is not attracted to pretty but not smart girls (for now at least); his past two GF were super smart, ambitious, and cute.

All of the men that I know in two income families are involved in childcare and cooking etc.

I don't know any of the come home and sit on the couch and just watch the wife clean and cook and look after the kids kind.

Dynamics have changed for sure over the last generation, at least in the sphere I am in.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just that, really “Type A” women tend to stay more fit.

It’s this

In Italy, where being fit and thin has way less to do with socioeconomics, no one cares if you are “high earning”.

Being a hot sahm is the dream/goal.

In anglo countries, due to body weight being linked to socio-economic status, interest in professional women is greater because professional women are less sloppy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the ‘20s. Men are absolutely looking for high wage earning women. Women have been seeking out men who earn more for century, it should be no surprise that ultimately men we’re going to do the same.


Welcome to the mid but we’re in the mid 20s, ladies!

The big question is whether or not men are now going to do half the childcare, cooking, and housework. Based on my observations it seems like marriage has less and less to offer women, but we shall see.

Many men actually do the majority of the house work, and looking after the kids. This is not new.

Also, it just makes sense to get a nanny for $20 an hour to look after your children while you are at work making much much more and a housekeeper to clean your house for 100 bucks a week. Many women use the argument that they have to take care of the home and the kids as an excuse to not work and capitalize on there early capacity, but they could be making much earn more money and just using daycare.

The nanny can never really replicate what a parent does. And I know there are some very good nannies out there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the ‘20s. Men are absolutely looking for high wage earning women. Women have been seeking out men who earn more for century, it should be no surprise that ultimately men we’re going to do the same.


Welcome to the mid but we’re in the mid 20s, ladies!

The big question is whether or not men are now going to do half the childcare, cooking, and housework. Based on my observations it seems like marriage has less and less to offer women, but we shall see.

Many men actually do the majority of the house work, and looking after the kids. This is not new.

Also, it just makes sense to get a nanny for $20 an hour to look after your children while you are at work making much much more and a housekeeper to clean your house for 100 bucks a week. Many women use the argument that they have to take care of the home and the kids as an excuse to not work and capitalize on there early capacity, but they could be making much earn more money and just using daycare.

There is no data that backs up your "many men..." claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a much younger sister in her early thirties and she and nearly all of her friends are SAHM’s to men working good professional jobs. Looking at the housing turnover in my neighborhood this seems to be the case there too. So I’m not sure if your theory is accurate.

I think it also depends where you live but ultimately, the high earning lawyer plus high earning cardiologist will do better overall financially and have the most resources of their kids. In the end, I can see this being the ideal set up.

You think a kid being raised by a big law partner and a busy specialist doctor is the ideal set up? Those people are going to need a backup nanny for the main nanny, so we are gonna have to agree to disagree there.

Yeah in the families that I know with 2 busy high earning parents, the kids aren’t getting a lot of attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the ‘20s. Men are absolutely looking for high wage earning women. Women have been seeking out men who earn more for century, it should be no surprise that ultimately men we’re going to do the same.


Welcome to the mid but we’re in the mid 20s, ladies!

The big question is whether or not men are now going to do half the childcare, cooking, and housework. Based on my observations it seems like marriage has less and less to offer women, but we shall see.

Many men actually do the majority of the house work, and looking after the kids. This is not new.

Also, it just makes sense to get a nanny for $20 an hour to look after your children while you are at work making much much more and a housekeeper to clean your house for 100 bucks a week. Many women use the argument that they have to take care of the home and the kids as an excuse to not work and capitalize on there early capacity, but they could be making much earn more money and just using daycare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a much younger sister in her early thirties and she and nearly all of her friends are SAHM’s to men working good professional jobs. Looking at the housing turnover in my neighborhood this seems to be the case there too. So I’m not sure if your theory is accurate.

I think it also depends where you live but ultimately, the high earning lawyer plus high earning cardiologist will do better overall financially and have the most resources of their kids. In the end, I can see this being the ideal set up.

You think a kid being raised by a big law partner and a busy specialist doctor is the ideal set up? Those people are going to need a backup nanny for the main nanny, so we are gonna have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe to you its not ideal but not everyone has the same priorities as you. These kids will have infinite resources and also the ability to spring into careers that they'd like. I have plenty of people in medical school class who had parents with exact these careers and they are doing well, close with their parents, and have also these career ambitions. They also felt that their parents were able to have flexibility in their schedules as high earners. I think the idea that these careers never see their kids is outdated.

To me infinite resources plus a total lack of parental oversight is just as likely to result in a coke problem as a high achieving kid

Naw. There’s too much peer pressure in their social group for them to end up as a Coke head. Unless of course they experienced some trauma (rape, abuse) growing up.

Anonymous wrote:Men don’t want failure to launch kids with executive functioning issues, so they are getting more careful with who they pick as mothers of their kids. Life is getting more complicated, so hot is not enough anymore.

Lol. I guarantee this was written by a woman!

Sorry, dumb bimbo trophy wives. Your time has passed.

Anonymous wrote:Equality

+1000

I mean, men used to want a wealthy wife, too. It's just that her money came in the form of a large dowry or inheritance. And it wasn't just wealthy people -- a lot of women were considered desirable marriage partners because their father owned some business that his son-in-law could inherit, or a good piece of farmland or whatever. And women often generated income after marriage: spinning, weaving, and other crafts; laundry; selling the products of animals or plants that she tended, etc.

The model of a man marrying a woman without regard to the financial benefits she brought to the marriage, with the expectation that he would fully support her and she would not financially contribute, is actually more of the anomaly.

Would love to have a sugar mama and I stay at home and workout all day and spend her money.