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 make around 160, drive a gorgeous Lexus GS, dress very nice and I'm totally fine dating a down to earth teacher driving a civic. Many of my rich buddies don't care either
Men are taught from an early age to be independent...they WANT a woman, but they are not supposed to DEPEND on whatever income she has. And until fairly recent decades, what most women brought home in pay did not have a huge impact on the family. Maybe it paid for some "extras" but many times it was seen as unreliable income, especially if there were young children or a family member got sick - the job was over and she took care of those responsibilities instead. So best to not rely on that income.
Now most women expect to have to work, certainly before they get married (if they decide to) or before having kids. Then it becomes more optional, depending on what the couple decides. And at least while married, most women rely on their partner's income when it comes to providing for the kids, as is reasonable. But work is still slightly more optional, and certainly the amount of income expected of women is less though a good portion of women happen to earn more than their partners. But the difference is that the EXPECTATION is not there. If it happens, great, if not - the guy really wasn't counting on it that much as long as she contributed SOMETHING.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just that a lot of people think this way. At least until they start to fail in their relationships - then they begin casting about for all kinds of expectations and talk about gold diggers (male and female), etc. Things are good, until they're not - then the blame begins.
Men are taught from an early age to be independent...they WANT a woman, but they are not supposed to DEPEND on whatever income she has. And until fairly recent decades, what most women brought home in pay did not have a huge impact on the family. Maybe it paid for some "extras" but many times it was seen as unreliable income, especially if there were young children or a family member got sick - the job was over and she took care of those responsibilities instead. So best to not rely on that income.
Now most women expect to have to work, certainly before they get married (if they decide to) or before having kids. Then it becomes more optional, depending on what the couple decides. And at least while married, most women rely on their partner's income when it comes to providing for the kids, as is reasonable. But work is still slightly more optional, and certainly the amount of income expected of women is less though a good portion of women happen to earn more than their partners. But the difference is that the EXPECTATION is not there. If it happens, great, if not - the guy really wasn't counting on it that much as long as she contributed SOMETHING.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just that a lot of people think this way. At least until they start to fail in their relationships - then they begin casting about for all kinds of expectations and talk about gold diggers (male and female), etc. Things are good, until they're not - then the blame begins.
I think the fact that more women go to college than men now complicates some things. There are a lot of women that make more money than the average guy now. For those women they'll have to decide what's more important to them how much a guy makes or being in a relationship w/ someone they actually like.
A good job is subjective if someone wants to work at a non-profit like the World Wildlife Fund it might pay less but they might be happier there and it fits into their personal philosophy on life better.
What's extremely aggravating is the double standard where it's ok for women to live that lifestyle and pursue happiness but if a guy wants to he's considered not worthy of quality women simply because he's not banking big money.
Feminism wanted men and women to be viewed the same but they cherry picked all the things that benefited them and this is why it's a gynocentric country.
If you want men and women to be viewed the same you would have to accept the fact that a woman making 100k will date a guy that only makes half that or even less. Since men have been doing that for thousands of years, e.g, the doctor marries/dates the nurse and the lawyer marries his legal secretary.
What you have now is a society where the women that are doctors and lawyers aren't open to dating the male nurses or the legal secretary.
Last edited by wanderlust76; 01-02-2017 at 12:27 PM..
these things are true for the 40-60 year old crowd
the women and men in the 20-35 range play roughly the same game and men still get judged much much more harshly than women do
Hell, I'm a perfect example of it. I make six figures and I would be fine dating a woman who makes 30K. Women making even low six figures want a man making 200k+
Hypergamy can be a factor. Women are less likely to date down in terms of income etc.
Hypergamy can be a factor. Women are less likely to date down in terms of income etc.
Correct hypergamy is one of the main issues that's partially where the double standard comes in at. There is no wage gap anymore it's been debunked by economists time and time again. There are tons of women that make more money than the average guy.
Men are taught from an early age to be independent...they WANT a woman, but they are not supposed to DEPEND on whatever income she has. And until fairly recent decades, what most women brought home in pay did not have a huge impact on the family. Maybe it paid for some "extras" but many times it was seen as unreliable income, especially if there were young children or a family member got sick - the job was over and she took care of those responsibilities instead. So best to not rely on that income.
Now most women expect to have to work, certainly before they get married (if they decide to) or before having kids. Then it becomes more optional, depending on what the couple decides. And at least while married, most women rely on their partner's income when it comes to providing for the kids, as is reasonable. But work is still slightly more optional, and certainly the amount of income expected of women is less though a good portion of women happen to earn more than their partners. But the difference is that the EXPECTATION is not there. If it happens, great, if not - the guy really wasn't counting on it that much as long as she contributed SOMETHING.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just that a lot of people think this way. At least until they start to fail in their relationships - then they begin casting about for all kinds of expectations and talk about gold diggers (male and female), etc. Things are good, until they're not - then the blame begins.
Interesting perspective, I came from a family who women often were the bread winners. My mom was not due to physical disability but she did eventually out earned my dad through her own business. I didn't want to marry up or down financially, but an equal and that's exactly what I've got. When I was younger I did out earned most of my peers so I didn't expect much in terms of future mate. But I was not interested in any bums either.
Correct hypergamy is one of the main issues that's partially where the double standard comes in at. There is no wage gap anymore it's been debunked by economists time and time again. There are tons of women that make more money than the average guy.
Yeah, this. It may be different for older folks but as a 30 year old male women in our age group tend to be making a lot more money and getting better jobs than men. Of course women also have the benefit of affirmative action, great preferential treatment and having things accommodated for them.
I suspect that at least in the western world by the 2030s-2040s women will make up 80-90% of high level managers/CEOs/Presidents/Executives etc. And if that's the way it goes, so be it, but I think it's only fair that women have to change as well and as such men should not be judged near as harshly for not having a great income or an expectation of "being the provider" etc.
As the wife, I'm finding this really challenging. And I don't really know anyone who has been through the same thing. In most cases it's the wife who has either retired early or never worked, and she's waiting for the husband to wind down. In our case, DH has been retired from full-time work for almost a year. He does still manage a business we have in another state, but his son is the day-to-day manager there, so this isn't a daily endeavor. He does travel there for about a week every other month.
See, why must it only be okay the other way? If a man's wife retired early I doubt it would matter to him at all what she was doing with her time, or care how "productive" she was. If a man complained saying "My wife is retired and she just sits at home, hanging out with friends, shopping etc. etc. and it really bothers me how unproductive she is being" I would bet he would get tons of flack and people telling him just let her do what she wants to do. But in the aforementioned case the guy can't?
Why is it only men are expected to adapt and have to be forced to change their mindsets when it comes to the "old ways" and are told "It's not a world just for men anymore" yet women can seemingly get all the benefits and advantages men have had yet at the same time expect to have the same benefits/advantages women did have in the past?
Gender roles in society are in conflict or out of sync with present reality.
Neighbor's husband decided to be the one to stay and raise their child until high school. He (a big kid at heart) is actually better with children than the wife. He found it very difficult to re-enter the workforce and jump start a career. It turns out that maternity for the husband is harder for prospective employers to swallow as a valid reason for a 5 year gap in resume.
As per the topic, are men judged more harshly for not having a good career/job than women? I have a question to men and women. Men, how much does a woman having a job/career matter to you? If she were pretty, nice, etc. but has never held a job or had a job but it was something like fast food would that matter to you? To women, say she doesn't have any kids but is in her 30s or 40s but never furthered her education or really did much with her life even if she had the opportunity to do so, would you view her as much of a loser the same as a man in the same scenario?
Men are judged more harshly along the lines you've described. What you do with that information, something that will remain true for the foreseeable future, is up to you. And BTW, you can get about the same social cachet from conforming as you can from genuinely not giving a crap what others expect from you; you just appeal to different types of people.
Correct hypergamy is one of the main issues that's partially where the double standard comes in at. There is no wage gap anymore it's been debunked by economists time and time again. There are tons of women that make more money than the average guy.
Women are out earning men up until a certain age and are outnumbering men significantly in colleges.
It turns out that maternity for the husband is harder for prospective employers to swallow as a valid reason for a 5 year gap in resume.
That's definitely sexist, and wrong.
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.
