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.
More women than men go into fields with lower pay.
Single men and single and married women are at the same general pay scale. Married men make more than all of them.
After marriage women are 90% more likely to go part time, quit work, or find a more flexible lower paying job because they are the ones who care for the kids, taking them to and from school/daycare, taking them to dr. appts, staying home with them when they are sick, etc.
So, in spite of all the push for equality in this and other countries for many decades, the fact is that gender roles remain the reality for the vast majority of people.
No more like I don't want to marry a dependent. You need to be an equal or better or why get married in the first place?
Women used to have to marry to survive. In exchange their husband got unlimited sex and children as a condition of taking care of a woman. Unlimited sex is important to men, not so much to women.
So what is the point of marrying a man who isn't going to make the woman's life better? Don't think your sparkling personality is that great.
Another factor that is not accounted for, from what I can see, is that higher earning is not just a thing that happens or doesn't, a factor of one's being independent of their choices. And one's choices can be driven by other variables in one's life. Chicken and egg. Rather than saying that a man has a wife and family because he is a high earner, perhaps he is a higher earner because he's motivated by his wife and family, to make choices that take him to greater earning potential.
I could make more money. All I need to do, is to decide that is the life track I want and put my energy into it. In other words, finish my degree and then apply for higher earning positions that I would then be a competitive applicant to attain. Why have I not done this? Because I'm not really sure that it's worth it to me, going back to school would mean that for a couple of years, I give up a lot of other things that I do in my free time. Do I want to commit the rest of my productive years to this field? I'm not sure that I do. The sunk costs have not been enough to persuade me to commit to it long-term. I have choices to make in the next few years. I could go this route, or I could switch tracks entirely and pursue a different field, which might be more fulfilling and play more to my strengths and passions...yet would carry higher risk. Higher risk, perhaps higher reward. Or maybe not!
But my ability to earn money isn't something that is out of my hands. I have options.
I am a woman, but if I were a man, I cannot imagine this situation would necessarily be different. Part of my calculations must be, how much money is "enough"...is there a great need for more, in my life? How much is my time worth to me? Time IS money, really, it's only a matter of choosing how to spend it as a finite resource in my hands.
If I am only concerned with supporting myself, as a single individual, I might choose uses of my time on the sole basis of what brings me happiness, rather than what builds wealth. I might spend my money on recreation rather than investment. I might choose today's gratification over tomorrow's promised payoff, not being so concerned with the eventual needs of my children in the future, if I'm not in the business of raising a family. A married man with kids, or planning to have kids, might be more motivated to make choices that push his earnings up.
In order to draw conclusions about mate selection based on earnings, wealth, and prospects, the evaluation would have to be made at the point of relationship initiation, not based on where married men are at, after however many years working to build a household. So before we even get into the evidence all around us, we can start pointing to flaws in methodology right there.
I think it is a psychological thing. Men are afraid they wont measure up to a woman's previous lovers. If she never had one she has nothing to compare to.
The entire idea of provider is based on woman inability to financially support herself and children due to mans laws restricting women in the workforce and their pay.
What is more comparable today is women giving up on expecting a husband-provider while man gives up on a wife-child bearer, nurturer, caregiver, cook and maid.
Again, over 50% of married mothers work therefore the husband is not the provider anymore than the wife is the provider.
it is a biological thing for a healthy male not to want a high mileage female as a partner to the point of physical disgust. Humans are not chimpanzees, they used to pair bond to raise children. For a human male to put his labor and life on the line for female and her progeny he needed some assurances of him fathering those children. All the alleged patriarchical oppression is due to the fact that women cheated then as they cheat now thus effectively parasitizing on lives and efforts of unlucky male hosts they have no particular allegiance to. You let human feminity to express itself and we become more like chimpanzees. Chimp males do not work to provide and protect specific females, they just guard their collective turf. There is a reason why chimps are chimps and humans are human.
You have to be a really repressed male to care how you measure up. Lots of social engineering was done for a husband to accept reality of a wife ranking her lovers and him and frequently being vocal about it. Wives are no longer cooks, maids, caregivers and such either. That's some alternative reality you reside in if you expect a modern wife to do those things. What's left is uterus, vagina and her paycheck if any. Yet women keep on adding up to their list of demands and expectations. It is surreal.
Gender materialism is a big topic in itself. Men have fewer easily satisfayable needs and wants the rest comes from the necessity to constantly display their peacock tail feathers to women. Women just want more of everything even though they do not have a pressing need to impress the opposite sex with their possessions and earning potential.
Perhaps pople tend to marry withing their own socioeconomic group, but income differential within the same group can be significant. A miracle happens and an invisible hand matches men who make more with women who make less or nothing, the other way around not so much. But marriages are no longer about just income it is about long term income & status prospective. Recent study of North Dakota oil boom showed that a spike in male' income lead to a spite of out of wedlock births and marriage stagnation or decline. Researchers speculate it is because women are concerned about lack of education and long term income prospects of roughnecks who made it big in the oil fields. Saddling a man mule with a sizable child support payment to live a life of an independent woman that seems to be a trend among lower income women who do not feel like their blue collar socioeconomic peers are a good match nowadays because of their steep depreciation in the damaging lines of work and low status.
Would displaying their peacock tail feathers not be mans own ego at work?
What is it you believe men's satisfy-able needs are compared to what women want more of.
Women tend to impress with looks. Dieting, clothes (girdles, wonder bras), hair, make-up. Men generally arent looking for a woman with possessions and earning potential. And there are historical reasons for the way each gender goes about attracting a mate.
People do marry within their socioeconomic group, generally. Income with in the same group is comparable, that is why it is a socio-ECONOMIC GROUP. Statistics also show unmarried men and unmarried women's incomes are comparable. So no there is no invisible hand paring higher socioeconomic men with lower socioeconomic women.
So what study because articles I read indicate that baby boom as well as previous fracking booms was among married couples. If your referring to Kearney's study it did NOT show any difference in marital and non marital births just an increase in overall births which is consistent when there is an income boom.
There is equal opportunity today.....but that is not the same as "equal chances". People inherit unequal chances.....due to past unequal opportunities. If my parents generation faced unequal opportunity because of legal discrimination and it stunted what they achieved.....as a child of my parents I am starting life off with unequal chances relative to those whose parents opportunities were not stymied due to race. Class affords advantages and disadvantage just like race does. One of the impact of of racism is that it placed blacks disproportionately in the lower class....and life chances are not equal for those raised poor relative to those from the middle and upper class, notwithstanding "equal opportunity".
Its like saying that everyone in New Orleans had equal opportunity to leave before Katrina.....but because some people did not have cars or money.....they did not have an equal chance to leave as others.
Well of course there are unequal opportunities and those in higher economic classes have greater opportunities than those in lower economic classes, those with political and legal pull often have greater opportunities than those that dont. That is not racism as it applies to all.
How long should it take a group of people to overcome disadvantages of discrimination once there is equal opportunities and laws?
Saying men have less material needs is basically ignoring the demographics of luxury and sports cars, tech toys, and pro sports. Sure, plenty of women enjoy those hobbies too, but the marketing tends to be geared toward men.
While my basic physical maintenance (clothing, makeup, skincare products) may be higher than most of the men I have dated, they've all had significantly more expensive material interests tied into their hobbies.
Saying men have less material needs is basically ignoring the demographics of luxury and sports cars, tech toys, and pro sports. Sure, plenty of women enjoy those hobbies too, but the marketing tends to be geared toward men.
While my basic physical maintenance (clothing, makeup, skincare products) may be higher than most of the men I have dated, they've all had significantly more expensive material interests tied into their hobbies.
I laughed when I read men have less needs. My husband LOVES to spend money, and never met an electronic he didn't like. I'M the one who restricts the spending... or we would be broke.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
it is a biological thing for a healthy male not to want a high mileage female as a partner to the point of physical disgust. Humans are not chimpanzees, they used to pair bond to raise children. For a human male to put his labor and life on the line for female and her progeny he needed some assurances of him fathering those children. All the alleged patriarchical oppression is due to the fact that women cheated then as they cheat now thus effectively parasitizing on lives and efforts of unlucky male hosts they have no particular allegiance to. You let human feminity to express itself and we become more like chimpanzees. Chimp males do not work to provide and protect specific females, they just guard their collective turf. There is a reason why chimps are chimps and humans are human.
You have to be a really repressed male to care how you measure up. Lots of social engineering was done for a husband to accept reality of a wife ranking her lovers and him and frequently being vocal about it. Wives are no longer cooks, maids, caregivers and such either. That's some alternative reality you reside in if you expect a modern wife to do those things. What's left is uterus, vagina and her paycheck if any. Yet women keep on adding up to their list of demands and expectations. It is surreal.
Ok.
What exact biological component drives a man to want a virgin. Historically men have sought out the company of prostitutes, slept with other men's wives, etc. Of course no one want a partner that disgusts them
Her progeny?
The need for assurance of paternity had to do with inheritance, not putting labor and life on the line for a female.
Your mistaken if you believe that wives are not doing the lions share of domestic duties and childcare on top of working outside the home. Look at any study, look around.
There mus be a lot of really repressed men then because penis size and measuring up in the bedroom have always been a big concern for men.
Wish I had a dollar for every time I have listened to men discussing/comparing their wankers or sexcapaids or been asked about previous sex partners.
I still love the idea of marriage, even as a man. I suspect the low marriage rates in the USA has more to do with a general lack of trust in people. The economy sucks, and people would love to receive money for nothing.
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.
