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

I think it's just how evolution has worked out. In general, men can see women as potential homemakers or fellow breadwinners, but women see men as potential breadwinners. It's just how it is the world over. And women expect that they will do the bulk of the work at home and raising kids, even if it's not necessarily true. But it usually is, so they want someone who can put in equal effort and afford it.

What's more important is being able to provide a good home and life for a wife and children. There's a bizarre notion in the West where your personality trumps all or something, like even if you can't get your act together, someone should love you for who you are. But actions speak louder than words and actually providing comfort and security is important.

My girlfriend is out of town this week and I've spent it buying stuff for the apartment and making improvements. It isn't even expensive but she's delighted and is showing her mum everything I'm doing. Brownie points everywhere. It isn't about my salary or the money. It's about the fact I'm creating a nicer environment for us and that is a big positive in terms of what she imagines having children with me would be like.

I guess salary and job is a shortcut when you're looking for someone. Like certain things on a CV get you in the door for an interview when your actual abilities are greater, but you miss out. That's where other qualities come in, like taking care of yourself physically and having interesting hobbies etc. And some forward planning goes a long way.

Age gaps work because it normally takes men a good few years to work through the mad 20s and then start to actually care about where they live and the state the place is in. Women want a man who lives alone, bought or rented, far earlier than men would care about it. It's just common sense. Otherwise, they're risking taking on a man who can't look after themselves, nevermind her and the children.

Yeah that wage gap thing is total bollox.

Guys shouldn't feel like they have to pay for everything because it's tradition either.

Firstly no I did not "interject" in a conversation. This is a thread on a public discussion forum. Everyone here is part of the same conversation. You really need to drop this need to tell everyone how to post and when and where and why. You are not the arbiter or moderator of the discussions here. If you want a private conversation - the website has a serviceable and functional private messaging system where no one can interject. Try it sometime. But you would do well to picture threads on this forum as a kind of "town square" where you might speak "towards" one person but you are speaking to everyone.

Secondly I did not "accuse" you of making up figures. I simply asked you the source of your figures because without a source there is no basis for me to A) believe the figure is accurate or representative (you don't have to make it up, you could for example simply be wrong) and B) to answer the question you yourself asked. You asked for an explanation of the 30% figure and once again - without a source of the figure an explanation can not be offered. I accused you of nothing. But I do not automatically "believe" everything I read on face value either. Withholding credulity is not the same as accusing dishonesty.

Third as for me "deciding it is your job" to find the figure - there is a long tradition on boards.ie of asking people to cite their sources and throwing derision on the "go find it yourself" cop out to that. If you can not back up or substantiate your own claims - you will generally be called on that around this website I have noticed. And well should you be.

Fourth you ask me to provide proof of my own? Eh? For what? Which claim did I make? I was querying you about your claim! Why do I need proof to ask you a question? If I make a claim you want the back up or proof for then do what I did to you. Ask me. You will find me a whole ton less unwilling than you have been to answer. If I drop a statistic or truth claim into a thread you can be damn sure I am ready to back it up with citation if asked. I will not run away - throw insults - use throw away phrases like "rambling" - or any other cop out. I will answer the question I am asked. I asked you for a citation - you have not answered. You have not asked me for a citation - so I do not need one. These things are very different to each other. If you ask me to back up something I said directly - and I refuse that request directly - then you can absolutely equate my behavior with yours!

Fifth - yes you are right I will every time go to the source rather than an opinion piece about the source. An article about a study is not the same as a study. And lifting a single quote out of a study does not represent the study well. The study mentioned in your link has a lot of detail and nuance in it. None of which was picked up by the opinion piece you linked to. The study itself was about the issue of relationship breakdown caused by conformity to gender roles. It is a poor representation of the study that was offered by the link you used. And yes many people here do read the origional studies despite your "as if anyone is going to do that". I did for example. And I understood it too. I actually have training which helps me read and interpret studies - which not everyone does - but even much of the study itself is accessible to the lay person. It simply does not say what you appear to think it says. The single line you are quoting is simply not representative of what the study concludes or is about.

Finally - I genuinely do not understand your hostile reaction here. Again - you cited a statistic and asked the user you were talking with to explain that statistic. In order to explain it not one - but two people - asked you for the source of it. Not to attack you. Not to rebut you. Not to fault you. Not to annoy you. Not to trigger you. Not to "deny reality". But simply to do what you asked and explain the statistic! You were treated not unkindly or disrepsectfully - but for reasons that are genuinely beyond my comprehension you have taken this perfectly normal and justifiable request and totally gone off on a series of tirades and not returned that respect in kind. I can not explain a statistic that you have thrown out in limbo. No one can. But I can explain the 50% statistic because you actually cited it and - mainly because the study itself (which you have indicated you have not read and will not bother to) does so. And a huge portion of the explanation lies in "traditional gender roles" and the effect (transitory as the writers of the study suggest) of our recent accelerated deviation from it. Put plainly - the authors do not think that financial differences are the cause of such statistics per se - but that the financial differences are a correlative symptom of a change in gender roles in recent times and these changes in gender roles are causing the frictions and issues that are inhibiting relationship success.

You just reminded me of the line from a very old Van Morrison song. "All the girls walk by / Dressed up for each other / And the boys do the boogie-woogie / On the corner of the street".

"I didnt read most of that"

So the same thing you did for the link and study you quoted then :)

That was a "roast" comment. But you have to admit you walked into that one :) You dug a hole and you are digging it deeper now :)

I do apologize. We have completely hit off on the wrong foot since the first. If I had my ckc out in my hand since the first I apologize for that too. But as I keep saying - your first message was "Here is a % please explain it" and I waded in like a knight in shining armour to say "I will explain! But first show me where it came from!". And this triggered you for whatever reason.

My intention was not to fault you or trigger you. But to literally answer your question. And as I said - I cant answer the question without the background.

But - and this is not slighting you - a "university citation" is not a great thing. It is still an opinion piece. You still have to go back to the original study and see what it was actually saying. Which unfortunately not enough people do (again not a slight on you!). We are too often mislead by people who write pieces about studies - and put their own slant upon it.

Semi tongue in cheek though - but half serious - careful where you drop the phrase "evolutionary psych." around boards.ie :) If you think I was in any way strident in my responses to you in the last couple days - you ain't seen nothing like what that might trigger hehehehehe.

As for your last question - scroll back I already threw mine into the mix :)

Of course, money is important for some women... especially women who are looking to settle down and want to have a guy that can provide some security. There's nothing sly or underhand in having such a preference. In fact, certain cultures encourage such a perception... (Try dating a few Asian or Russian women, and you'll quickly appreciate what I mean)

All the same though, I really do have to laugh at this one. Throughout my 20s and early 30s while I was earning pretty good money, my dating sucked in a major way with women. However, in my 30s, I switched from working in Finance, moved to teaching/lecturing (abroad), with a major cut in salaries, and suddenly my dating improved substantially. 😂

Many woman want a man who has character and is willing to commit himself to something.... and TBH most women I've dated in last decade have earned more than me... and they/we were fine with it. Money isn't terribly important to me, and while most people don't really understand it, they can accept it. Kinda. The women, for whom money is important, steer clear of me for dating (except for the short term), but honestly, I do think most women these days have more important priorities than whether the guy earns well or not. It's always going to be a factor for some people, but considering the salaries and benefits available to women, they can easily surpass their partner if they're that way inclined.

TBH I suspect having a similar level of education/qualifications is more important to women, than income.