Anonymous wrote:Man here, this is a real issue. I have lots of single, reasonably attractive single female friends who are stable and financially somewhat successful. They ask me if I have any single friends I can set them up with and the answer is no. None. I literally do not know one man who is still single in his mid-30s on who I consider eligible. I do know some divorced dads but even those ones that have their act together have zero problems finding a date.

Someone said it best upthread: Men are still prized for their money and women for their looks. If a woman makes a good salary, than the man she prizes has to be at least equal if not financially better. There aren't that many men statistically who earn good paychecks and the ones that do are married, the ones who are still single in their 30s totally run the dating scene.

Note that everyone in my neighborhood who paired off did so by mostly meeting their spouse in college or grad school or immediately after.

If you want to know who your financially successful married handsome husbands are sleeping/cheating with, these are them. They rule the conference scene as single men in their 30s rule the dating market.

And no girl, he is never leaving his wife for you.

Anonymous wrote:There is something very sad about a woman who
is too snooty to date a male teacher.

Signed....... a woman who works with a lot of
high school male athletic directors, a lot
of high school male coaches, and
a lot of high male teachers.

There's nothing wrong with teachers. But if I'm going to date a man whose job is dependent on his physical fitness or atheletic prowess (coach or director) I'd rather date a man in the armed forces (if I'm going for a MC lifestyle) or in the pros (if I'm going for a UC lifestyle).

There's nothing inherently more attractive about the men you named and most other professions make more money or at least have better perks.

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.

+1. It’s not a class issue, i.e. it’s not marrying down. It’s marrying someone who does not bring equal value to the table. Value can be measured many ways. Men marry women with lesser education and lower earnings precisely because they expect to gain the unpaid labor of that person to raise children and in general free them from all the administrative tasks of home and life so that they can focus their time on income generation.

Women, however, generally can’t expect ANY unpaid labor from a man. Why should a woman marry a man of lower education (and presumably lower income earning power) and lower present income AND also expect to take on increase unpaid labor in the home and as a result probably have to diminish her income potential over time.

No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:There is something very sad about a woman who
is too snooty to date a male teacher.

Signed....... a woman who works with a lot of
high school male athletic directors, a lot
of high school male coaches, and
a lot of high male teachers.

The study defines economically unattractive as no bachelors degree or less than $40k. Teachers don't meet either of those criteria. What's with the strawman?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study makes sense to me. I make >$350k/year and DH makes about $75k. This would not bother me as much if he even did an equal amount around the house and for the kids, but I do 90% of everything. He sits around playing video games. Makes it hard to respect him and I suspect divorce is on the horizon.

It's not about women wanting sugar daddies - it's just that we want me who will pull their own weight and be equal partners. Who wants another child?

I also make >350K a year. Dh was a hardworking responsible teacher before we had kids. Dh became a hardworking responsible SAHD after we had kids. There's no way that I would be where I am today professionally post-kids without dh's work at home.

Your problem is that you married a lazy irresponsible person.

I agree. I DID marry a lazy irresponsible person. Or in any case, a seriously depressed person who seems unable to pull himself out of his depression. Not sure I could have known - when I met him he was making much more and had a more high-powered job. He got laid off, got depressed, and never really recovered (it's been seven years....). At first I was sympathetic and patient. Saw him through multiple failed and feckless plans to start businesses, etc. Urged therapy, medication, etc. Then... when he refused to get serious about either getting help, helping me, or kickstarting his own career, I started getting sad and frustrated. Now... I'm pretty much done. There are occasional moments when I still see flashes of the energetic, creative, hardworking guy I married but they are very rare. I don't think I can take it for much longer.

That being said: I think this story is not uncommon. (As the study under discussion suggests). Most of us women grew up assuming we would work AND care for kids and house, and we do. A lot of men seem to feel the world has betrayed them. I do think there are all kinds of complicated national-level and even global factors at play -- decline of industrial base, expansion of work into 24/7 project, rise of intensive parenting cultures etc. -- so I am not saying this is all a failure of character on the individual level. But it sucks.

Anonymous wrote:This is an area that sociologists and economists have been studying for decades.

See this 1985 Washington Post article: The Men Aren't There To Marry (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/08/the-men-arent-there-to-marry/480cfbc7-3ff2-46f8-8a5f-54d4bf18100d/)

And here's a nice 2015 overview: Is there a shortage of marriageable men? (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/09/22/is-there-a-shortage-of-marriageable-men/)

My favorite takeaway from the 2nd article link from Brookings is actually a user (foreseer2) comment:

“Remember the concept of not "settling" or not getting involved with someone who falls short of Prince Charming - not rich, not handsome, not this or that. Today's women apply higher standards to men than to themselves, constantly looking for a better offer. They want to control their men like mothers and cannot bring the idea of partnership to the table. Marriage is not as much about love as respectful communication to find and achieve common objectives - material comfort, good health, raising great kids, etc. It is hard work and if you cannot love and accept your spouse for who he or she is, it will be all uphill for you.”

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. I’m a single mom making $275k. Yes f I wanted another dependent, I’d have another child. Very few men make the same salary as me, which is fine for lasting or long term relationships, but I’m not marrying financially down.

Woman here: what is your profession?

There is something very sad about a woman who
is too snooty to date a male teacher.

Signed....... a woman who works with a lot of
high school male athletic directors, a lot
of high school male coaches, and
a lot of high male teachers.

Anonymous wrote:Women have also realized that having kids with a loser means having a man-child and regular children, and providing for a family financially. Not a good deal, so why bother?

+1

Marriage is a bad deal for women now unless he makes at lease double what she does if kids enter the picture. There just is no advantage unless the guy is rich. Better to stay single.

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?

This was very true as an AA woman when I was in my 20s. I and many other AA women I knew were college educated by our mid-20s and reluctant to be what my great-aunt called “unevenly yoked” to a man who did not yet have the ability to help build a MC lifestyle. I’m happy to see that attitude seems to have vanished among the AA Millennials I know. I think young AA woman who want to marry are following the example of Michelle Obama and selecting a man with potential that they can help reach a higher level. There are so many diamonds in the rough. It took a bad marriage to a man who ticked all the boxes to teach me that happiness isn’t the house, cars, and vacations —they can be just a special type of hell. If I’d meet my second DH when he was a twenty-something country boy enlisted in the Marines, I would have never seriously considered marrying him. Today, he is my soulmate.

Wait, what?

When Michele met Barack he was a big law lawyer. They were a power couple from date one.

I understand she later put her career on hold to support him, but let’s not pretend she saw untapped potential in an unemployed man. When they met he was bringing home a big paycheck - just like she was.

In addition to having gone to Harvard Law. Not my definition of a "diamond in the rough."

No, actually. When they met she was a big law lawyer, and he was a summer associate at her firm.

Still not like she found him in a slum and saw his potential, but she took a chance on at least being gossiped about for dating the summer associate she was tasked to mentor.

Anonymous wrote:Study makes sense to me. I make >$350k/year and DH makes about $75k. This would not bother me as much if he even did an equal amount around the house and for the kids, but I do 90% of everything. He sits around playing video games. Makes it hard to respect him and I suspect divorce is on the horizon.

It's not about women wanting sugar daddies - it's just that we want me who will pull their own weight and be equal partners. Who wants another child?

I also make >350K a year. Dh was a hardworking responsible teacher before we had kids. Dh became a hardworking responsible SAHD after we had kids. There's no way that I would be where I am today professionally post-kids without dh's work at home.

Your problem is that you married a lazy irresponsible person.

A lot of women overlook men working in the trades.
The men I know working in the trades are making
big money and seem to be much happier than
office workers.

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?

This was very true as an AA woman when I was in my 20s. I and many other AA women I knew were college educated by our mid-20s and reluctant to be what my great-aunt called “unevenly yoked” to a man who did not yet have the ability to help build a MC lifestyle. I’m happy to see that attitude seems to have vanished among the AA Millennials I know. I think young AA woman who want to marry are following the example of Michelle Obama and selecting a man with potential that they can help reach a higher level. There are so many diamonds in the rough. It took a bad marriage to a man who ticked all the boxes to teach me that happiness isn’t the house, cars, and vacations —they can be just a special type of hell. If I’d meet my second DH when he was a twenty-something country boy enlisted in the Marines, I would have never seriously considered marrying him. Today, he is my soulmate.

Wait, what?

When Michele met Barack he was a big law lawyer. They were a power couple from date one.

I understand she later put her career on hold to support him, but let’s not pretend she saw untapped potential in an unemployed man. When they met he was bringing home a big paycheck - just like she was.

Yep.

Pres44 was not bumming on his mother's couch complaining about the environment and working part-time for a non-profit. He had a JD from Harvard, was a 1st-round pick for a top Chicago law-firm, had grassroots organizing as a hobby, and was a State Senator at 36.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

UMW - I like hot guys but have never been attracted to having a SAHD/Beach Bum on my couch. Maybe it's a guy thing (wanting to provide), but I haven't met any GFs (married and unmarried) who wanted one either.

I know many women who run companies/lawyers/doctors and their husbands are either teachers or make ~$70K ... in the DC area that is similar to $40K elsewhere.

These successful women end up advancing in careers because they're good at it and they have no choice if they want to buy anywhere within the beltway and support their kids.

They probably married the man and were making about the same amount starting out. Its different when you come into a marriage already making a high-income.

Why would I go out and search for a teacher or low-employed man? The two women I know in the above situation are absolutely miserable. Their DHs are fat slobs and they are working 60 hours a week to make sure he is taken care of.

The ones I know are thankful they can travel and work late and advance their career and know that somebody is taking care of business at home. They coach teams, run carpool, help with homework and actually love their wives. Imagine that.

I would not choose that life... I chose to mommy track and my H daddy tracked... we are both home with the kids.

Who wants to be a single mom to their kids and never see their H? Obviously some women are okay with that. There are also many women that are okay with their H being the primary parent.

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?

This was very true as an AA woman when I was in my 20s. I and many other AA women I knew were college educated by our mid-20s and reluctant to be what my great-aunt called “unevenly yoked” to a man who did not yet have the ability to help build a MC lifestyle. I’m happy to see that attitude seems to have vanished among the AA Millennials I know. I think young AA woman who want to marry are following the example of Michelle Obama and selecting a man with potential that they can help reach a higher level. There are so many diamonds in the rough. It took a bad marriage to a man who ticked all the boxes to teach me that happiness isn’t the house, cars, and vacations —they can be just a special type of hell. If I’d meet my second DH when he was a twenty-something country boy enlisted in the Marines, I would have never seriously considered marrying him. Today, he is my soulmate.

Wait, what?

When Michele met Barack he was a big law lawyer. They were a power couple from date one.

I understand she later put her career on hold to support him, but let’s not pretend she saw untapped potential in an unemployed man. When they met he was bringing home a big paycheck - just like she was.

In addition to having gone to Harvard Law. Not my definition of a "diamond in the rough."