Good article about the problems with women dating down

[MatureDJ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/23whopays.html?_r=1&em&ex=1190779&oref=slogin

FOR Whitney Hess, a 25-year-old software designer in Manhattan, the tension that ultimately ended her recent relationships was all right there, in the digits on her pay stub.

True to my nature, the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the pic of Ms. Weiss was:

She's got a nice pair of tīts.

 

[ketostix]

But I thought women made 75 cent for every dollar men made?
I guess when women have something else to complain about they can admit that they make as much or more as men. They complain about making less then men now they're complaining about making more.

 

[jonwon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/23whopays.html?_r=1&em&ex=1190779&oref=slogin



True to my nature, the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the pic of Ms. Weiss was:

This is known to guys who care to study, but has its a general rule, it is not THE RULE.

My ex earned about 3 grand more then i did, she was a high school teacher on decent money back then, she never held it against me, but there where other issues.

I also know some guys who are married where there partners earn more then they do.

granted some women will never ever marry down, but some women dont really care for all the nonsense, they are pritty much secure anyway.

If you concentrate on being a dam good catch, not by value, you will realize most of the 'work ethic' to impress women by earning bigs bucks is in fact media and social spin, to get you to conform with the rat race grind.

its all well and good being a success and having the means to have a good life, but one needs to know that not all women expect you to be a wage slave or will give you a hard time if you dont earn has much as they do, especcially when you have other quality;s that she would values far more then keeping up with the jonses!

Not all women are like this, sadly though alot are, they have been simply programmed to accept this as normality, when the truth is you could have a decent life anyway.

I am constantly bombarded with the need to get rich, i am pritty happy where i am, but alot of people jump to this conclusion, my life is good, being rich may help or it may not.

Media constantly bombards us with consumerism, get rich, women being around rich guys, rich guys getting all the puss*, yeh it works it how this society is bred, but know its not THE RULE! Not everyone plays that way and alot of women actually look down on the money hungry leaches! some women would do anything to get a rich guy.

You can hate the general rule of women, but dont fall into the trap of thinking you cant get a women due to this, it is limited belief nonesense, not all play that way and it would be rather insulting to insuate this to alot of women also.

I know women who earn a hell of a lot of money and LOVE to buy gifts for the guys they are with, now thats worth thinking about. I have had women buy me things out of the blue loads of times, i asked them why they do it, they always say 'it makes them happy to see that i like what they bought me' Totally and reverse from the average ideal that men should buy women gifts, its simply perception on reality.

I have known women who buy men flowers, this apparantly is rather common in greece.

Women are earning alot of money these days, it wont change.

Yeh there are women out there who think this is an issue, but i will state there are far more men who thinks its a bigger issue.

the fact is, on my experiance, as long has i had means to take care of myself, contribute towards the bills and have enough cash left over to enjoy persuits of entertainment that was all that was needed, i would not expect any women to want a BUM or a guy who did not work at all.

I have complained about women marry up a while ago, this was a product of bitter resentment, but when i look around the real world i realize it does not hold up in alot of cases.

 

[betterthandead]

Moneys money, it doesn't really define who you are. Britney Spears could've dated a guy that was more equal to her, instead she got two bastard children from some masculine player albeit a loser. I'm guessing women are smart about this that they will tend to date a guy who isn't equal in terms of economics or even appearance. She isn't doing it out of spite, she's doing it because she believes this is the best she can do.

 

[Bonhomme]

The Britney/KFed situation has played out to be a good example of why money is not an indication of who is the loser.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Oh, is it time to re-heat the "men-don't-live-up-to-professional-women's-entitlement/expectations" topic again?

Sorry, but this is the biggest lie ever to be floated out by the 'Today's Woman' crowd. Men could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it - it's simply not a factor in attraction for us - Men simply do not take a woman's professional status, education or wealth into consideration, all she has to be is hot. That is a guy's one condition for intimacy, physical attraction. She's gotta be hot - whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jones' husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodesiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from 'professional' life are conditions women have for men in attraction. That's not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring's security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the potential of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a Man with these qualities one to be competed for with other women. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy. Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the conditions/criteria women place on them for their intimacy.

Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men's basic impulses - she's-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it's just icing on the cake for us, but this is analagous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking.

The 'Today's Woman' crowd love to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy's ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction of the physical by blaming it on 'men's fragile egoes' or how they 'feel threatened by professional women' myth. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their 'professionalism' that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

The ideology then grinds it's teeth at the men 'qualified' to date professional women for having a tendency to prefer women far younger, less 'powerful' and (surprise) generally in much better physical shape than the 'professional' they should be dating. For this they're called 'infantile', 'immature', or their behavior is regarded as a character flaw, or a desire to relive his youth with a 'trophy wife' - interesting that this term should come from the same faction to complain about the evils of objectifying women. All the man is doing is following his primary impulse, she has to be hot! And of course the operative convention in all this is an attempt to level the playing field with women who are generally more attractive and youger than themselves - though comparitively less eduacted and "successful" - who command the lion's share of the male attention from the Men who would meet their 'professional equal' criteria.

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this 'professional woman' mythology is that professional women want to be the success objects - they want the same factors that drive their attraction to men to be their own basis for male attraction, but nature keeps confounding their efforts.

Now, all of that said, if a woman's choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as they understand the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.

 

[joekerr31]

money matters to women. women see what a man makes as an indicator of his suitability to be a long term provider.

the only reason money doesn't matter to men is because a woman making less money actually makes a man feel more secure in his relationship - he gets to feel like he's 'providing' for his woman.

this is the biological expression of the male ego, which has been very necessary in life to ensure men protect their women and offspring.

 

[mzilla2]

From the article:

"Unyi Agba, 27, an advertising executive with a small firm in Boston, almost always dates professional men, but when she goes out with someone earning less money, there is tension. “This is a topic that’s traveled in my own female circles a lot in the last year,” she said. Across a restaurant table with a man who earns less, “it’s never explicitly said, but there are nuances,” she said. “Things are said like, ‘Boy I’m going to be really broke after this dinner.’ "

And her response?

“Silence.”

Yup. About says it all. She ain't chippin' in. It clearly does not go both ways, despite the multitude of women who will tell you money isn't that important...

ROFL

 

[WestCoaster]

Rollo is right ... but I wanted to address another part of the article: How New Yorkers are so freaking weird compared to the rest of the world and how the NY Times thinks the rest of the world thinks like them.

Honestly, I don't know the difference between a bistro and a diner or restaurant. They had this discussion on ESPN radio the other day, one of the hosts didn't know the difference either and it had to be explained.

OK, I've lived out in the West my whole life and here's how it works here: "You want to go get something to eat?" Then you decide what kind of food, it doesn't go freaking bistro or diner, f-ck NY/East Coast urbanites are elitist and anal, too.

You go out to eat, period. If you don't take the woman to a nice enough place, she's not the one for you. If she even says the word "bistro" -- sorry, I don't know what the h-ll she means. Pizza, burger, or fine dining.

I don't get all the uptown/downtown/south of downtown sh-t either, another funny discussion on ESPN radio.

We're eating downtown, period.

Rant over.

 

[squirrels]

I think a big part of it was that women used to be taught to be the frugal ones in the "classic" relationship. Shopping, back in my parents' and grandparents' day, was a vice reserved for priveleged occasions. Most of the money had to be saved for keeping the home and taking care of the kids.

I remember my father telling me once that he'd like to get out to eat more often, go have a night on the town with my mother, buy "stuff", but my mom was always reigning in the purse-strings to support the household.

Nowadays women are marketed to so heavily and are so poor at resisting the marketing that they've become uber-consumers. Shoe-shopping is no longer a luxury, but a necessity.

As far as New York...it's a VERY different culture. Still a fun place to visit, though.

There really is a class system in a city like that, like it or not.

 

[ketostix]

Yeah I think in these examples of women who made more than the men, These women were making it an issue and being cheap (expecting the man to pay his half or pay for everything) and flaunting their money. Then the woman blamed the problems from income disparity on the male.

It was all just typical female BS to put all the blame on the men, and to also justify why women "have" to date men who make as much or more money than the woman does.

 

[Colossus]

As far as New York...it's a VERY different culture. Still a fun place to visit, though.

There really is a class system in a city like that, like it or not.

I don't get all the uptown/downtown/south of downtown sh-t either, another funny discussion on ESPN radio.

Its a New York thing. Like squirrels said, its a totally different culture; more socially stratified than anything you will see in the midwest.

One of my good buddies lives/works in manhattan, and the money you make really dictates your social 'ceiling' there, at least in terms of going out and nightlife. He makes good money for a New Yorker (which is GREAT money for a mid-wester), so he can afford to go out to cool places. Im always amazed at the cash he drops when i go visit him...all the nicest restaurants, food that will make a grown man cry, posh bars with $15 beers...crazy. The a$$ in that city is unbelievable. Great experience to go there, for anybody. But if you wanna live in the big-time city you better make big-time money.

That being said, in this stage of my life i dont sweat it if a girl makes more $$ than me. Im in college, so my net income is negligible. What, so she makes more at her part time job than i do?? Who cares. Like Rollo said, if she melts my butter, then thats all i need.