How important is a man's job when it comes to dating?

How do you explain all those women who marry men not earning great money?

Because that can only exclusively mean they want to find out whether he's rich? I mean it probably does sometimes (not saying there are absolutely NO women who are only interested in wealth) but it's also just an ice breaker, small-talk, "getting to know someone" question between two people who don't yet know each other and have limited things to say. Guys have always asked me that question early on too. I don't think there's anything suspicious about it. It's one of those basic things like "Where are you from?" which anyone asks of anyone.

There is job and money - but there is also the reason any given person is in that job and money. The two are not the same things and quite often people can moan that dating sucks for them because of their job/earning when in fact the job/earning is the symptom not the disease.

You can have a given job/salary/wage as part of having your life together - getting after it - focusing on your goals and paths in life - being competent and healthy - and being all round stable. Another person can have the exact same job but be all over the place in life and not keeping it together at all.

If during dating people pick up on the latter they might have no interest in you - but you might then go home and blame it on the job/salary because that is easy to do. Just like the posters/threads on this forum we often see where eternally single guys are complaining they are doomed before they begin because X. Where X can be "I am just not tall enough" "My wallet is not fat enough" "My dick is not big enough" "I am just not objectively hot enough" "Irish women are too picky / stuck up" "the feminists have turned women against men" and many more. We hear so many of them even on this forum alone.

And they entirely ignore the multitudes of short or working class or unemployed or obese or other guys and gals who all find love and settle down. They simply never try to map their theory onto the real world and notice it does not hold true. Why would they? They have an easy excuse for their being single that A) absolves them of responsibility and/or B) makes the gender of their affection out to be the issue rather than themselves. And then people like Jordan Peterson get a career out of suggesting that maybe, just maybe, some guys should perhaps try taking some control and/or responsibility over their own lives.

In my own field there are people earning a hell of a lot more than me who cant get a relationship. There are people "below" me with the opposite situation. And I am anything but a high earner myself given I have turned down most promotions and salary raises because I am fixated on a particular work/life balance. I am not the highest earner in my relationship at all either and that disparity is only going to widen in the next 20 years I expect.

Human relationships are complicated and while we might like easy answers and explanations and generalisations for things - if you find you are single and do not want to be but keep failing to change the situation - simply saying "I just don't earn enough" is probably going to be massively simplistic and not at all what is going on.

What are those figures from? I don't agree with just throwing out unsupported figures to support bias.

It still doesn't negate the fact that most women don't marry a wealthy man.

In fairness you cited a very specific figure. 30%. So asking people to go and google this for you is a bit crass. The user did not ask you are there studies out there at all. He asked you which study specifically you lifted your figure from. So googling a vague phrase and getting 100s of google results is not going to bring the answer to the question actually asked which is: specifically where did you lift the 30% figure from?

And a refusal to cite your exact source does kinda leave the impression you probably just made the figure up yourself. Which I doubt is your intention. As they say 97.465769843545468435486% of statistics are made up on the spot :)

Anyway even your last sentence there - much like the 30% figure - does not allow one to jump to any conclusions about money. Many playboy models are already moving in certain socials circles for example. And most people marry into their own circles. Because you rarely meet - let alone fall for - someone outside it. So yes people moving in the circles of people with money - are likely to marry someone with money. Just like - as was mentioned earlier in the thread - most people end up marrying someone close to their own age. Because more often than not you are around people your own age.

That said though - famous people and such are not often representative of the norm. Using them anecdotally to back up a generalisation about people as a whole is risky ground. It rarely maps onto average realities.

Anyway the sentence "Most men dont marry a playboy model" is a bit silly. The fact is most women are not playboy models. You might as well say "Most men do not marry astrophysicists" :) It would make exactly the same amount of sense. And still say nothing at all.

One curious thing my mother advised me once when I was young.

Don’t pretend to be as clever as are; men like to feel they are the more intelligent and have the solution to things.

I told her I’d rather dispense with a man who would prefer me to play dumb, but I do have to admit there was a tiny element of truth in it. I think that is just human nature and could apply equally to any gender, but culturally in my Mum’s time men were reared to set the intellectual pace. At the same time she did observe I seemed to be unconsciously outsmarting a guy, and that’s when she preferred her advice.

That I don't know. Personally I find his brashness and arrogance unattractive. I don't think he looks like a goblin though.

Yea throwing around insults makes you look bad not me. I will worry about how I write my posts and you worry about how you write yours thanks. I use the quote button when it is materially useful to do so. Directly replying in sequence to someone - it is not required.

If you can not back up your own statistics with citations - again that makes you look bad not me. Citation dodging is common around here and no one buys it that I have seen.

You said 30% and you can not find a citation for your having thrown out that figure. Fine. At least we know that now.

Exactly. 50% is not 30%. You were asked where you got the figure of 30% and you can not find it. You seem to be reacting to being asked where the figure came from as if it is some kind of attack on you. Let me remind you of what you said:

"Women who earn more than their husbands are over 30% more likely to divorce. Why is that?"1

You actually asked outright for an explanation of the figure! Now how is someone to answer you if they/we can not look at the figure you asked about and how it was formed???? Why even ask the question if you blatantly do not want an answer?

Again however how someone uses the website or the quote function is not your concern or yours to dictate. I use it when it is useful to do so. And clearly it is not "required" as here you are discussing all my posts with me perfectly well.

That might be when you personally use it. Do not assume your reasons are mine. Mine are my own and differ from yours wildly.

Again it is not that I "believe" you or not (it happens that I do not, but thats immaterial). The point - again - is that you openly asked "why" this 30% figure exists (assuming it does which seemingly it does not). It seems my "crime" here is to take the question and openly try to answer it as if you actually were being honest in wanting an answer.

To answer you regardless - honestly - requires seeing the background behind the statistic. By asking you to give the citation no one has "denied the truth" as you put it. Quote a single place where I wrote you were wrong or I denied any truth. You won't find it. Because it didn't happen. You asked about the figure and to answer your direct question two people (I am one) simply asked you where the figure came from. And you got triggered by this for reasons I do not understand.

For example your latest post about the "50%" is a link to a news media opinion piece. Not a study at all. And the 50% mentioned there is a single sentence lifted entirely out of all context by the author. The actual study for anyone interested is here:

And the 50% figure is a lot more complicated and has a lot more nuance behind it than the opinion piece goes into. And it has a lot less to do with relative earnings than your own summaries on the thread so far. The conclusion of the paper is that this has a lot less to do with money and a lot more to do with "Gender Identity Norms".

In fact in their own conclusions they write: "In future work, we would like to better understand the long-run determinants of gender identity. While the evidence in this paper suggests that the behavioral prescription that “a man should earn more than his wife” helps explain economic and social outcomes even in the most recent decade, this does not imply that this prescription is as strong today as it was in the past." suggesting they - unlike some of the posters on this thread - are playing down the effects of relative income both now and going forward.

Woman hate causes such anger.

Quote me you coward! I can read your mind and I know why you're doing it. It's for some sinister reason all in my head.

Also, what you're saying is well thought out and nuanced and I don't like that as it shows up the holes in my non argument so it's rambling shyte.

Women are what I say they are, irrespective of all the evidence to the contrary around me, because I don't like them.