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 think that when women mention "financial stability," it's a way of avoiding being taken for a ride and treated as a workhorse. Hey, we don't like "gold-diggers" either. I certainly learned my lesson with that one, although he wasn't so much a "gold-digger" as much as someone who was content to sit back and take advantage of my sense of responsibility. (I mean, if he was a gold-digger he chose the wrong target, as my resources were more like bronze than gold. ) That translated into other things that showed a general streak of irresponsibility, like how he approached housework, chores, plans for events and vacations, etc. In other words, the character flaw was irresponsibility, and how he handled money was just one way of several it manifested. Point is, when people, men or women, marry, they usually do so with the intent of having a partner, not becoming a meal ticket, a workhorse who exists to make the other person's life easier, or a parent to an adult child.
Speaking of children, many women are forward thinking and pragmatic about it: They consider children further down the line, and whether a partner will be able to contribute to providing a stable home for them. I don't know that men think along those lines as much. They might be thinking "will she be a good mother to my kids," but that tends to be more based on values and qualities like patience, nurturing, and ability to relate to kids. This may be my age talking here, but a lot of women my age and older were grilled by our parents about what a boyfriend does and whether he would be a good provider for children. I don't think men, at least men older than their mid-30s, were raised with that kind of thinking. Maybe the younger ones were, though.
.
What is relevant to this post is what the authors found out when they investigated why more poor women didn't marry in order to escape poverty. .........................
The answer: the better off, more economically stable men wouldn't marry poor women. .................
..
It seems to me that the real issue here is how do you convince these low income women that it is their own responsibility to get themselves out of poverty? Everything they need to do it is available and is often free. All they have to do is to decide to put the effort into doing it.
The choice is between getting an education and raising their social level or getting pregnant, probably multiple times, and letting Uncle Sam take over the position of father and bread winner for the family.
They don't need a husband because the government is filling that need for them.
Not really a revelation. Pretty much common knowledge (except for here in CD land, apparently).
Agreed.
Very few upper middle class or 99%-type marries people far below their station. Exception being golddiggers (female) and men smitten by a pretty-faced floozy. That would be counter-productive as a reproduction strategy, since by the numbers what you see is what you get. This has historically been the case, for virtually all societies since man formed civilization. Marrying outside one's station is a very new phenomena, only past c. 100 years, across the span of civilization.
My friend's ghetto brother-in-law being a typical case: he's a n'er-do-well, always will be, and little seems to change across the years. My friend, in-contrast, is a 99-plus % intellect, also reflected in his prodigious salary from a large software firm. The friend is a walking money-printing machine to said-firm. The brother-in-law, a typical example of those the police "make contact with" in cop-speak (i.e. a dirtbag).
My friend married a woman of even disposition, unflagging good cheer, and middling intellect from a family of only working class aspirations. Exactly what he wanted: a vessel for his legacy (two darling children, thus far), not a "partner" in the modern Western sense of the phrase.
There are always exceptions. They do not make the rule, and are usually sensationalized and thus giving disproportionate apparent public "weight" to said-exception. Examples of the rule seldom make interesting news; the exceptions do.
George Orwell summarized nicely in "1984" regarding the "High, Middle, and Low." One unchanging constant being the latter's general state in life.
We associate-with, empathize-with, go to university with, and live adjacent to those of our socioeconomic status. Which correlates strong with intelligence, which correlates strongly with caliber of education, etc.
"Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010" by Charles Murray outlines the concepts thoroughly, as-usual for one of his nonfiction tomes: his works are numbers-heavy and implacable in conclusions. Facts are non-political; they simple are.
Because I can't breastfeed, and 9 months of pregnancy and maternity leave severely reduces your potential future income.
That, and no woman wants a househusband, no matter how much you're unwilling to admit it.
And this (bolded) is why women are concerned about the earning potential/financial stability of a future mate. Women are the ones who stand to take a hit to their earnings when kids come along. So if she marries down they will be struggling financially. On top of that she will be the one responsible for the domestic and parental duties. Who the heck wants to be, as Lilac said, the workhorse.
You guys are just angry because women are more financially savvy.
Peanuttree-baby bottles.
It appears that you are trying to sell something to women that you yourself would not consider doing.
...but isn't that true for men as well? I think it is.
This question came to mind after I finished reading a book titled "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage." It is a fascinating read. It reveals that a lot of behaviors among the poor that seem self-destructive actually make sense given their circumstances. But that's another discussion.
What is relevant to this post is what the authors found out when they investigated why more poor women didn't marry in order to escape poverty. This was an important question, since married couples are far less likely to be poor than single women.
The answer: the better off, more economically stable men wouldn't marry poor women. In fact, in all of the communities the authors studied, the best off, most economically stable men and women tended to marry each other. No one, male or female, was interested in marrying anyone below their own economic level. On the contrary, both women and men consistently married partners who would enhance their own household income and raise their standard of living.
I think this is an interesting revelation...
Your post is not true, what's true is that people marry people who are in their social circles. Notice that a guy living in a rich neighborhood is not likely to end up with someone whom he can hardly ever get to know. That's why doctors will stick with doctors, actors with other actors, models with other models, rich folks with other rich folks - they are much more likely to end up this way. But the general premise is NOT true about either the future or what drives the single moms.
What truly drives them is the fact that they're often not successful themselves and their baby daddies are their only option if they want to have children. They opt this way NOT because they're economically independent as the media wants you to believe but because political agendas are heavily subsidizing single mothers. They could subsidize poor married couples but they just won't - because they are anti anything that represents "old values". We are all coerced to fund something we despise because a group of people WANTS special treatment for the big daddy state - those women legally marry the state and taxpayers. It's quite similar to one big marriage at the expense of everyone else. When the mother gets tired of living with the financially unstable guy, she disposes of him, setting such modus operandi for her daughter and giving a clear example to her son of his pre-designed future role that society will assign to him. It's like giving a mother an option to make all decisions at the expense of taxpayers when it comes to their family unit, instead of encouraging healthy relationships and personal responsibility.
Many of today's single mothers KNOW what they're doing, since they went with such notion since very beginning. It's just that this forum wants us to believe the commonly trumpeted notions that half of women divorced for being beaten up regularly, living with an alcoholic or a drug addict, or having a vicious felon, etc. Those reasons often overlap but they still comprise 20% of all divorces and it counts for both sides who demanded divorce - other 80% comprise boredom a.k.a. growing apart, cheating, etc. And this is only the case for officially married couples whose divorce ratios don't get lower even though less and less people are marrying, and generally being better and better suitors in general.
Mothers have adapted quite well because the society is coerced to participate in social engineering that lasts for many, many decades already.
Bottom-line for first bold part: yes, it reveals that women have all the incentives NOT to marry unless the guy can pull more than the taxpayers are going to contribute through health insurance, cash assistance, housing programs, paid education, employment programs for unemployable single moms, subsidized daycare, etc. Daddy can be around and live unmarried to contribute extra money unless she finds a better replacement. This is why those unions are silly and very volatile, both parties will likely cheat on each other to better their own vision of lifestyle, men don't think of themselves as permanent family member, other men see their chance to score and father a child for someone else to raise since it comes to the same deal to them, many will act highly promiscuous and don't care for family unit much, women try to bring that new guy who's going to be the "daddy upgrade", etc. Ghettos only extrapolate all that to the Nth.
Unfortunately there's a huge stratification of society and societal norms so that there is a difference in lifestyle and philosophy among those classes that is growing bigger and bigger. I.e. richer folks tend to use old norms, poorer folks opt for "alternative families" much more often, and this whole deal makes a vicious cycle where the new "culture" is being born among those classes, and that "cultural difference" finds the other class group more and more repulsive as potential spouse. Something which was actually a norm during the Middle Ages and feudalism. Also add there that more and more folks opt to avoid the deal where one of the spouses enters with much bigger assets due to well-known reasons in today's society, or they opt for prenuptial agreement very often. I'd say more and more couples are marrying their monetary peers today than ever before and this is generally the main reason, aside from the mere stratification or the people whom they meet in their social circles.
Forget a man being financially stable; I want a man who is mentally stable.
I work two jobs and can manage my own bills.
I want a woman that is mentally stable as well. I am not financially stable yet , but i went back to college and work towards becoming more financially stable . On top of having a job i like and a job that matters.
Woman view guys that work retail as bums IMO It just on step above fast food and two steps above the guy that mops up the *** puddles at the end of the night at the porn theater.
The trend in recent years has been that "like" is marrying "like."
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.
) That translated into other things that showed a general streak of irresponsibility, like how he approached housework, chores, plans for events and vacations, etc. In other words, the character flaw was irresponsibility, and how he handled money was just one way of several it manifested. Point is, when people, men or women, marry, they usually do so with the intent of having a partner, not becoming a meal ticket, a workhorse who exists to make the other person's life easier, or a parent to an adult child.
