Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want a nice guy whose personality meshes with mine - that is the entire package - I don't check pay stubs. If he happened to be rich, cool, but definitely not my priority. It wouldn't occur to me that the 'entire package' includes a huge bank account because I think other things are more valuable when seeking a life partner.
You sound like a gal with her head on straight. Too bad in our material world with our material girls it is the exception and not the norm. it does bring up the changing demographics though. More women are becoming the larger wage earner. Thus fewer higher status men can be available for selection. It is something that women will need to adjust to. I do not think they like the idea, No not one little bit.
It's pretty simple - women prefer to look UP to a man, not DOWN (or at least have him at the same level). It's the same whether it's about height or social status.
I have been reading this thread for the past 2 days, thinking about it and mulling over the responses.
I see a lot of responses supporting this particular one. My egalitarian philosophy just bursts into overdrive and I cannot for the life of me understand why women look up to social status or height.
Now the height thing for me is understandable in many ways. I'm 5ft 2in so almost everyone is taller than me and I have spent my whole life looking up. I guess if you were 6ft tall you would feel kind of uncomfortable dating someone significantly shorter than you, but really, what does it matter?
The social status part is what really chafes my butt. Are women THAT shallow? Some are of course but I am not. I don't care if the man I love is from a better family or is more educated or earns more money. I am secure in my own ability to earn a living and relate to the world. I do not need a man to 'pull me up'. I am not interested in status just as I am not interested in keeping up with the Joneses in terms of material things.
Conversely I do not care if he earns less than me or comes from a less wealthy family. These things do not make a man. Social status, wealth, height, looks...these things are all made redundant if both man or women does not have character, substance, morals, an inquiring mind, kindness and a host of other attributes.
i don't think it's true - I know PLENTY of women earning 200-700k+ who are in relationships with guys who earn 5 figures. The key is to have equivalent education/intellect.
From all the replies I've read so far, this really has more truth to it than the surface value of what is said.
Historically, men made more... and the men that made much more (more than $200k) were - generally speaking - the more intelligent or educated men. Although women have come a long way in parity for position in pay (acknowledging there's still a distance to cover) it had always been traditional that they didn't hold the jobs or receive the pay for the jobs that men did. So, they (women) may have been comparable in intelligence if not education, but just didn't receive the same chances men did. So, reaching back financially wasn't an issue of capability so much as opportunity. I think you'll see much more reversal of the precept today than in years past.
So.. to answer the question - men reaching back for women was more related to a lack of opportunity for women than women reaching back for men was related to a larger disparity in intelligence/education.
OK, as long as we are going to play the traditional roles game, which I don't necessarily have a problem with, the next question should be "are eligible men willing to be with a woman who does not perform the traditional role of wife"? You know, cooking a meal every night, cleaning the house and taking care of the kids.
I think that the answer is obvious, and I am sure that the woman who value education, morals etc would not be willing to fully take on this traditional role.
The social status part is what really chafes my butt. Are women THAT shallow? Some are of course but I am not. I don't care if the man I love is from a better family or is more educated or earns more money. I am secure in my own ability to earn a living and relate to the world. I do not need a man to 'pull me up'. I am not interested in status just as I am not interested in keeping up with the Joneses in terms of material things.
This is only my opinion, but to me, social status = power - and power is a strong/desirable trait for many. Most people that hold a higher social status hold a good amount of power (socially, economically, or in a business/job). I have heard it said that if you want to impress a woman, take her to where your "power" is. You may not have a glamorous job, but if you are good at a sport (say soccer) then have her to to a league game or practice. The success relates to power (as your peers noticeably respect you and that is apparent in something you are successful at). So, it's more subconscious or subliminal in the way it affects some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna
Conversely I do not care if he earns less than me or comes from a less wealthy family. These things do not make a man. Social status, wealth, height, looks...these things are all made redundant if both man or women does not have character, substance, morals, an inquiring mind, kindness and a host of other attributes.
This goes to the old adage that "birds of a feather flock together". Although there are exceptions, generally speaking, successful women are intelligent, hard working, and possibly multi-faceted. Therefore, they seek out the same in a man. And those men generally will probably be intelligent, hard working, and possibly multi-faceted which may equate to equally successful.
I have been reading this thread for the past 2 days, thinking about it and mulling over the responses.
I see a lot of responses supporting this particular one. My egalitarian philosophy just bursts into overdrive and I cannot for the life of me understand why women look up to social status or height.
Now the height thing for me is understandable in many ways. I'm 5ft 2in so almost everyone is taller than me and I have spent my whole life looking up. I guess if you were 6ft tall you would feel kind of uncomfortable dating someone significantly shorter than you, but really, what does it matter?
The social status part is what really chafes my butt. Are women THAT shallow? Some are of course but I am not. I don't care if the man I love is from a better family or is more educated or earns more money. I am secure in my own ability to earn a living and relate to the world. I do not need a man to 'pull me up'. I am not interested in status just as I am not interested in keeping up with the Joneses in terms of material things.
Conversely I do not care if he earns less than me or comes from a less wealthy family. These things do not make a man. Social status, wealth, height, looks...these things are all made redundant if both man or women does not have character, substance, morals, an inquiring mind, kindness and a host of other attributes.
Quote:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Djuna again.
OK, as long as we are going to play the traditional roles game, which I don't necessarily have a problem with, the next question should be "are eligible men willing to be with a woman who does not perform the traditional role of wife"? You know, cooking a meal every night, cleaning the house and taking care of the kids.
Try to find that today anyway. This is in no way to bash women, but there are so many women that are in the workforce (I believe it's almost 50-50 with men-women in the workforce) that having a woman who would clean house, cook dinner, take care of the kids is less and less likely in society today (unless they're married to a complete @ss). I do most of the cooking (which I don't mind) in my house. I also share responsibilities of cleaning with my wife AND kids. I work from 6:30am-3:00 pm. Although I go to the gym M-W-F until about 5:00, my wife works from 8:30am - 5:00 pm. So, it only makes sense I do more.
Most families are also finding that to either make ends meet or to achieve shared goals (it could be for a bigger TV, a summer vacation, or whatever) that both people work - whereas that was less the situation when women did all those things by themselves.
I have been reading this thread for the past 2 days, thinking about it and mulling over the responses.
I see a lot of responses supporting this particular one. My egalitarian philosophy just bursts into overdrive and I cannot for the life of me understand why women look up to social status or height.
Now the height thing for me is understandable in many ways. I'm 5ft 2in so almost everyone is taller than me and I have spent my whole life looking up. I guess if you were 6ft tall you would feel kind of uncomfortable dating someone significantly shorter than you, but really, what does it matter?
I am six feet tall. One female poster recently said that her guy is seven inches shorter than she is. While I have dated a few guys shorter than I am, we're talking a few inches. I don't know how anybody dates someone significantly shorter than they are, men or women. Stooping over for a hug or kiss ... awkward. Sex ... really awkward. Certain positions ... nigh impossible. Don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna
The social status part is what really chafes my butt. Are women THAT shallow? Some are of course but I am not. I don't care if the man I love is from a better family or is more educated or earns more money. I am secure in my own ability to earn a living and relate to the world. I do not need a man to 'pull me up'. I am not interested in status just as I am not interested in keeping up with the Joneses in terms of material things.
I agree with Sierra that the majority of women want men who are on at least their level. The same level is fine. It doesn't mean that women need men to be wealthy or heavily degreed or whatever, just from a similar background as they are.
And, not to be rude, "I don't really care about money or status" is usually just a platitude people say but don't mean. The notion that love is all a couple needs to be happy defies the statistic that financial difficulties are a major reason for divorce, if not the leading reason. Wanting a home, lack of debt, and money put away for the kids' college doesn't make a person materialistic--or if they do, sign me up, because I'm apparently as materialistic as the day is long. Those things are extremely important to me, and the man I chose as my mate agrees with me. I was raised that way by a family of farmers and other blue-collar workers who told me, hell yes, you better get out there and make something of yourself and give your children an even better life than you had, just like we are doing for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna
Conversely I do not care if he earns less than me or comes from a less wealthy family. These things do not make a man. Social status, wealth, height, looks...these things are all made redundant if both man or women does not have character, substance, morals, an inquiring mind, kindness and a host of other attributes.
What's interesting is that so many people in this thread (and others like it) seem to regard 1) education/wealth/social class/good looks and 2) good character as mutually exclusive things. Why would I marry an unattractive but kind man when I could marry a man who is attractive and kind?
Last edited by JustJulia; 08-03-2010 at 10:11 AM..
What's interesting is that so many people in this thread (and others like it) seem to regard 1) education/wealth/social class/good looks and 2) good character as mutually exclusive things. ...
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.. -Matthew 19:24
I am six feet tall. One female poster recently said that her guy is seven inches shorter than she is. While I have dated a few guys shorter than I am, we're talking a few inches. I don't know how anybody dates someone significantly shorter than they are, men or women. Stooping over for a hug or kiss ... awkward. Sex ... really awkward. Certain positions ... nigh impossible. Don't get it.
*gasp!* You're right! I guess all the cuddling and hugging and sexing and all that stuff we've been doing for four years now was imaginary!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
And, not to be rude, "I don't really care about money or status" is usually just a platitude people say but don't mean. The notion that love is all a couple needs to be happy defies the statistic that financial difficulties are a major reason for divorce, if not the leading reason. Wanting a home, lack of debt, and money put away for the kids' college doesn't make a person materialistic--or if they do, sign me up, because I'm apparently as materialistic as the day is long. Those things are extremely important to me, and the man I chose as my mate agrees with me. I was raised that way by a family of farmers and other blue-collar workers who told me, hell yes, you better get out there and make something of yourself and give your children an even better life than you had, just like we are doing for you.
I don't think that 'love' is all a couple needs. Perserverance, understanding, willingness to work together and compromise, hard work. My parents are definitely blue-collar and don't make a lot of money ... but they own their own home, have almost zero debt, and while they couldn't afford my entire college education, I never expected them to pay for any of it. My parents also understand the differences between needs - a roof, nutritious food, the heat bill - and wants - granite countertops, 3500 square feet, and a brand new SUV. Luckily, they passed those lessons on to me.
My partner and I aren't making a lot of money right now, but we're compatible on a lot of levels (including things like education, background, and morals) and find ways to make each other happy that don't include jewelry stores and $200 concert tickets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
What's interesting is that so many people in this thread (and others like it) seem to regard 1) education/wealth/social class/good looks and 2) good character as mutually exclusive things. Why would I marry an unattractive but kind man when I could marry a man who is attractive and kind?
I don't think they are mutually exclusive - I know plenty of men who are attractive, kind, highly educated, and making a decent wage (though I think I'm too young to really know many rich people, lol). Just like I've known a few people who were poor and terrible. And kinda ugly.
It just seems as if a lot of people list their priorities as such:
1. good looking
2. rich/making enough money to afford a few BMWs
3. marriage!
This sucks for both the good catches who aren't rich and the ones who are. I'm betting there's plenty of nice rich people who unwittingly married power-seeking jerks and are in terrible relationships. Just like there's plenty of people who will never see that money and looks aren't everything and will likely never really figure out why their rich and successful and possibly even caring spouse doesn't really satisfy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
