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.
+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: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: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.
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.
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?
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?
Female here who has NEVER thought of it this way, but now realize I should have. However, the man-child + childbearing thing still holds.
The men who have historically married a woman with no income/assets/earning potential did so with the expectation they'd get some amalgam of a domestic servant out of the deal: definitely all childcare, likely most if not all cooking and cleaning. Women who marry "down" economically cannot expect the same. It's not the same calculus.
Anonymous wrote: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.