Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

Men do it all the time. Why not? If you meet somebody you love?

Men never do this. The woman they marry is the one who takes care of the child. From conception to birth the woman carries the full burden of childcare in pregnancy. After birth the woman continues to bear primary responsibility for childcare, especially in the newborn phase. For most couples, the woman continues to be the default parent throughout childhood.

If the man can’t even bring home a paycheck why would any sane woman take on all the family responsibilities? A man who loves you would not want his partner bear all the financial AND care taking responsibilities in the family.

Anonymous wrote:

If the man can’t even bring home a paycheck why would any sane woman take on all the family responsibilities?

Is the issue in this area the man can’t bring home a paycheck, or is the issue that the paycheck isn’t statistically way abnormal?

If the man can’t even bring home a paycheck why would any sane woman take on all the family responsibilities?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is there has always been a shortage, but now women don’t need to rely on a man to survive. Easier to work than be married to a loser.

This

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

MRA wishful thinking Footnote: "Economically unattractive men, however, couldn't care less, are leading happier lives than their married, economically attractive counterparts, and are having regular sex."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

Men do it all the time. Why not? If you meet somebody you love?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is there has always been a shortage, but now women don’t need to rely on a man to survive. Easier to work than be married to a loser.

this

Anonymous wrote:Just from my own experience and on message boards there are plenty of women complaining how their male partners won’t step up in the home or watch children. Even the SAHDs are lazy. Unless men become true partners at home and take on responsibilities a SAHW would it is likely the working female breadwinner will find herself in an impossible situation. I agree little incentive for a working woman who earns well to get married, if she really wants children she can get a child by choice and raise it alone with a nanny and it will be way better than dealing with a man child.

Anonymous wrote:My guess is there has always been a shortage, but now women don’t need to rely on a man to survive. Easier to work than be married to a loser.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

Footnote: "Economically unattractive men, however, couldn't care less, are leading happier lives than their married, economically attractive counterparts, and are having regular sex."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know any women who would be interested in an economically unattractive male except for economically unattractive females. Women generally like to pair up with people in a similar position or better.

True, but therein lies the problem. Just as women are primarily attracted to intelligent providers, men are attracted primarily to looks. So just because a woman becomes educated and earns good money doesn't make her more likely to land one of the few educated, attractive men unless she is at least baseline attractive too.

The end result is that many women over-estimate their dating value and end up chasing after the same pool of men.

Said men all end up cheating anyway since there are still many single women competing for them even after they marry.

So ends my jaded view of all of this.

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

Anonymous wrote:Just from my own experience and on message boards there are plenty of women complaining how their male partners won’t step up in the home or watch children. Even the SAHDs are lazy. Unless men become true partners at home and take on responsibilities a SAHW would it is likely the working female breadwinner will find herself in an impossible situation. I agree little incentive for a working woman who earns well to get married, if she really wants children she can get a child by choice and raise it alone with a nanny and it will be way better than dealing with a man child.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know any women who would be interested in an economically unattractive male except for economically unattractive females. Women generally like to pair up with people in a similar position or better.