re: Women Can't Find "Economically Attractive" Men

quote:

---

Jk, there actually is some truth to what you’re saying. Luckily Father Time swings hard in men’s favor in that late 20s to 30s window from what I’ve been told

---

It hasn't for me yet but honestly I wasn't really trying there for a long time. I am trying to get back into the dating game but even being in my 30s now I haven't seen it get better.

If anything I feel like it's worse in your 30s because now you have the divorced women and/or women with kids.

quote:

---

Really, so you think they actually wrote an article about just a few women? They wouldn't have written this article if this wasn't becoming a major issue.

---

Did we read the same article?

Nowhere in the article did it say women won't marry middle class men with decent jobs. Where are you getting that from?

quote:

---

had nearly a 55 percent higher income than what the available men in the U.S. actually make

---

This is the closest thing to it, and they failed to actually provide numbers here.

What are the "available men" making? They never gave that number to us.

There are people all across the country making $25k-$30k. 55% more than $25k is not exactly super rich. Are you saying the "normal" men who make this should be worth marrying to women? I don't disagree with you for the record, but I also see why a woman would not be jumping to marry a man who is struggling to meet ends meet.

There are also so many other factors that go into this.

quote:

---

Of note, the study offers a pattern and a potential explanation but does not show a clear cause-and-effect relationship in their modeling. Also, as much as we know that people tend to partner with similar others, we do not know the full extent to which the economic potential of men contributes to real-life dating decisions relative to other important factors (e.g., likability, kindness, good humor).

---

Plenty of people are satisfied making $30k, but lets be real. On that salary, you're not in a very ambitious role OR you're super young. And since we are talking about marriage trends, I assume we are talking about people over the age of 25, closer to 30.

Being in an entry-level role when you're 30+ tends to show complacency and lack of ambition, regardless whether you agree. Since these are attributes that have been proven to be attractive to many women, are you really shocked that a % of women in their late 20s/30s don't want to commit to someone complacent in an entry level job?

What I gathered from this article is that women are more educated than ever, making more money overall that they ever were, and are opting for men doing the same.

I did not see anywhere that it mentioned women who make $50k only marry men who make $100k. I did, however, see it implied that women who make $50k want to marry men who also make $50k or more. And I don't really see a huge issue in that..? Men value looks and will take a hot woman who doesn't make money. Women value money and many won't marry a man who makes less. Is this really groundbreaking? Isn't it what makes the two so yin and yang?

Maybe it’s because women are taking jobs that would have once been filled by male head of household types to support their families

The majority of women are hardwired to want a provider, no matter how financially successful they are.

quote:

---

Dating apps and websites have made women who are 4's think that they are 8's. No wonder the only "economically attractive" men they think they are entitled to wouldn't go near them.

---

For a while now companies have been giving preference to women for hiring and promotions simply because they’re women, an effort to even out the past gender imbalance at the expense of current and future men.

The result is there’s a good amount of men out there who are making less than they should and a good amount of women who are making more than they should.

quote:

---

For a while now companies have been giving preference to women for hiring and promotions simply because they’re women, an effort to even out the past gender imbalance at the expense of current and future men.

---

This is absolutely true. It's been going on for decades now.

If you have two candidates who are just about equally qualified, one male and one female, the female is getting the job.

Tuck mentioned that fewer males are going to college, so, if having a college degree translates into making more money, the pool of economically unattractive males gets even larger.

quote:

---

Take a woman who makes $60,000, she probably isn't even considering any guy who doesn't make six figures.

---

Maybe, but it's probably more due to the fact that the woman has been hardwired by Nature to be attracted to traditional gender roles than about being a golddigger.

quote:

---

What are the "available men" making? They never gave that number to us. There are people all across the country making $25k-$30k. 55% more than $25k is not exactly super rich. Are you saying the "normal" men who make this should be worth marrying to women? I don't disagree with you for the record, but I also see why a woman would not be jumping to marry a man who is struggling to meet ends meet. There are also so many other factors that go into this.

---

Where do I even begin with this. The discrimination you show against average to working class men is pathetic. And to answer your question I say yes, a man is more than his bank account. A man who makes 35-40k should be worth marrying to women, especially if it's a man who is doing something he enjoys.

So again a man is only worth what is in his bank account? You say that a man who only makes around 40k isn't worth marrying in most women's eyes? Why are you still assuming that the man has to bring home all the bacon? If the woman is making a decent salary and the man is happy at his job why should the money make any difference? If you both make 40k a year that means combined you're at 80k. Not rich by any means but without children you can still live a pretty decent lifestyle on that.

I do take some offense to your statement as I am right in the middle of what you said you find unattractive. I make around 40k a year.

So according to you women shouldn't be "jumping" towards men who only make 35 - 40k a year. Yet us men should be jumping towards women who only make 35 - 40k a year? Why should us men marry any woman who makes less than us? Maybe us men should start "marrying up"? Of course I say that because you know and I know that if men held women to that same standard men would be called misogynistic and every other name in the book.

quote:

---

Plenty of people are satisfied making $30k, but lets be real. On that salary, you're not in a very ambitious role OR you're super young. And since we are talking about marriage trends, I assume we are talking about people over the age of 25, closer to 30.

---

What about teachers? What about firemen? What about doctors who spend time in other countries? What about people who work for volunteer organizations? There's a lot of professions that are critical to this country that don't pay particularly well but people (men and women alike) do them because they have a passion for them, because they enjoy them. Are men just supposed to throw all that away to impress a woman? Do you hold women to the same standard?

quote:

---

What I gathered from this article is that women are more educated than ever, making more money overall that they ever were, and are opting for men doing the same.

---

So money is the only indicator to you of success? And women call us men simple minded and shallow. There is far more to success than money. What I gathered from this article is that a lot of women (not all, but a lot) are hypocrites. They want equality when it benefits them (in the workplace for example) but they want traditional gender roles when it comes to relationship. They still expect the man to be an ATM and bring home the bacon.

Let me ask you this LouisianaLady, what if men started changing their standards? What if all of us men in our 30s who are even average decided that we only want to date women who are in their late 20s/early 30s, not divorced, no children, physically attractive and work out several times a week if not daily to maintain their bodies? Would you be accepting of that?

quote:

---

I did not see anywhere that it mentioned women who make $50k only marry men who make $100k. I did, however, see it implied that women who make $50k want to marry men who also make $50k or more.

---

Why? Why should that even matter? If you're not planning on having kids why should income really matter? Men for years now have "married down" and married women who make 1/2, 1/3 or even less of what they make? So it seems a little hypocritical that women refuse to marry down in any way.

quote:

---

And I don't really see a huge issue in that..?

---

How can you not? Feminists have been pushing the equality stuff for how long now. Isn't this what equality was all about? Women making money so that they wouldn't have to rely on a man for his money? Or was that all just a lie?

quote:

---

Men value looks and will take a hot woman who doesn't make money. Women value money and many won't marry a man who makes less.

---

The difference is men are trashed, ridiculed, ghosted, humiliated and even threatened for admitting that looks matter. They try to make us men feel guilty for even thinking about physical attractiveness. Yet women receive no pushback for considering economic attractiveness. In many ways it's even encouraged.