Beerme Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Having a college education and some sort of job merely indicates he's reasonably smart and able to provide for a family; I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement, especially if the woman is educated herself. I will also admit to preferring taller guys, because I just happen to find height physically attractive. I'm not so fussed about weight, although being a reasonable weight indicates that he's fit and healthy. What's wrong with wanting an attractive, healthy guy who is able to provide for a family - that's what we're genetically hard-wired to want... Interesting. As a guy without a college degree, I've run across several women during my dating history that said that they won't date a guy without a college degree. I certainly see why they have this criteria, but also think it shouldn't be a dealbreaker if the guy has all the other qualities they are looking for. In many cases, you probably need to get to know a person better before making to swift a judgement. I may not have finished college, but it makes me far from uneducated. I scored a 1390 on my SAT, and even after I dropped out of college, I took the GMAT because some friends of mine were applying to business schools, and I just wanted to see what I would score. I ended up scoring a 690, which I don't think is too bad. Don't get me wrong, looking back on it all, I do wish I had finished school. Most of my family members have graduate degrees or Ph.ds. Now my brother says I'm either the smartest idiot in the world or the dumbest genius. He thinks that I waver back and forth between those two. Anyway, I'm just saying that we all go into dating with a certain set of criteria for who we want to end up with. That's a natural thing to do. However,and this goes for both men and women, it would be a real shame to miss out on someone incredible just because you didn't get to know them a bit better.
WalkInThePark Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Interesting. As a guy without a college degree, I've run across several women during my dating history that said that they won't date a guy without a college degree. I certainly see why they have this criteria, but also think it shouldn't be a dealbreaker if the guy has all the other qualities they are looking for. In many cases, you probably need to get to know a person better before making to swift a judgement. I may not have finished college, but it makes me far from uneducated. I scored a 1390 on my SAT, and even after I dropped out of college, I took the GMAT because some friends of mine were applying to business schools, and I just wanted to see what I would score. I ended up scoring a 690, which I don't think is too bad. Don't get me wrong, looking back on it all, I do wish I had finished school. Most of my family members have graduate degrees or Ph.ds. Now my brother says I'm either the smartest idiot in the world or the dumbest genius. He thinks that I waver back and forth between those two. I also dropped out of college when I was 20. And I regretted it later. BUT I went back to college and obtained my masters' degree while I was working fulltime. It was tough. But exactly because I did such a big effort to get a degree, I find it very important to be with someone who also has one. My professional occupation is in an intellectual field and I just can't see myself be with someone who does not have a clue about my job. Note that I talk about intellectual here, not intelligent. Both have to be there: I can't be with someone who is intellectual but not intelligent. And not with someone who is intelligent but not intellectual. What is also important is that most guys with a university degree have a higher income. Income is important for me, NOT because I want to depend financially on a guy but because I have a really good income and I don't want to be with a guy who earns a lot less than me. If a guy has an income which is a lot lower than mine I would feel bad the whole time for wanting to have a comfortable lifestyle. Either I would have to become very careful with money (which I hate) or I would have to support him (which would make me resentful). For me this is about wanting to be with a peer, someone who is my equal.
Mr White Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Having a college education and some sort of job merely indicates he's reasonably smart and able to provide for a family; I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement, especially if the woman is educated herself. I will also admit to preferring taller guys, because I just happen to find height physically attractive. I'm not so fussed about weight, although being a reasonable weight indicates that he's fit and healthy. What's wrong with wanting an attractive, healthy guy who is able to provide for a family - that's what we're genetically hard-wired to want... Um, at the aggregate that's gona be a problem , First, only ~30% of the population has college education. Even if people date only within that group, which is probably a good idea, by now women in college outnumber the men, so this requirement just won't work statistically, especially considering that men with more education have both more options and are not universally opposed to marrying women without one.
WalkInThePark Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Um, at the aggregate that's gona be a problem , First, only ~30% of the population has college education. Even if people date only within that group, which is probably a good idea, by now women in college outnumber the men, so this requirement just won't work statistically, especially considering that men with more education have both more options and are not universally opposed to marrying women without one. OK, the statistics are against us. But is there a law which says that we HAVE TO get married? I prefer to be single than with a guy I am not feeling good about. I mean, I could have married 10 times with some loser of a dating site but would that have made me happy? NO! I have seen from close by how it is when a woman marries a guy who is not in her league: my mother was such a catch but she came from a poor family and married my father to leave her poor existence. She was miserable for 42 years and I heard how much contempt she had for my father.
Mr White Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 OK, the statistics are against us. But is there a law which says that we HAVE TO get married? I prefer to be single than with a guy I am not feeling good about. I mean, I could have married 10 times with some loser of a dating site but would that have made me happy? NO! I have seen from close by how it is when a woman marries a guy who is not in her league: my mother was such a catch but she came from a poor family and married my father to leave her poor existence. She was miserable for 42 years and I heard how much contempt she had for my father. Well, that explains a lot, some therapy could be beneficial. You seem to carry anger well beyond reasonable expectations, which is really at the core of the "I will not settle" shouting from rooftops... Let me also point out the double standard of men never complaining that in the majority of cases they end up being the ones who provide most of the support for the family (or support their spouse altogether). It would be nice to marry a woman who earns more for a change . Imagine the flaming a guy would have to endure if he wer to say that he resents his wife for making less than him .
Eeyore79 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Women are more concerned about a man's income because if the relationship goes to plan she expects to be a stay-at-home-mother for a few years, or at least work part-time while the kids are growing up, so the family would rely mainly on his income. The man usually has no expectation of the woman being the breadwinner while he stays at home; he fully expects her to be looking after their kids and not bringing home the bacon, so he's less concerned about her earnings. It's all about traditional gender roles; I wouldn't feel respect (and therefore sexual attraction) for a man if I was significantly wealthier and more powerful than him, and I wouldn't have confidence in his ability to support a family. I'd be prepared to pull my weight and work as much as I could, but I'd still expect to be parenting more and working less than him - most women expect that. Who says that women in college outnumber men? I don't see why that should be the case - unless women are generally smarter? I agree with the poster who said it's about wanting to be with someone who is your equal, someone you have something in common with. I'm fairly educated and intellectual, and I wouldn't be compatible with your average beer swilling factory worker; we would simply have nothing to talk about. But I think the same would apply to educated men - in general they want a smart and attractive woman, someone who is their equal and who contributes to the relationship financially and otherwise, not some empty headed floozy who they have to support financially and who can't hold a decent conversation with them.
SteveC80 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 What does this even mean? Theyres alwyas gonna be somebody "better" out there so you always settle if thats what you mean Women seem to look at relationships as one big shopping Mall
tincanman99 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Here is the reality, if you dont want to settle than dont. Thats a choice just like choosing to settle is a choice. But it is hypocritical to say there are no men when there is a shopping list of requirements 10 pages long. If a person doesnt want to give up on anything, you dont have too. Nothing wrong with that. What I have seen however is that a woman settles and than proceeds to torture the guy they settled for because he doesnt have a, b, c. And for the finale they will complain to their friends at what a piece of garbage he is, blah, blah... You are better off being by yourself in that case. But realize that in life you cant have everything. Its just how it is. An example: You want to be thin and fit, well than you cant stuff your face full of ice cream and chocolate every night and not exercise. It just doesnt work unless you have some bizarre genetics that the rest of us dont (in which case contact me because its time to get a grant to study you ). Its all about choices and what you value.
Mr White Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Women are more concerned about a man's income because if the relationship goes to plan she expects to be a stay-at-home-mother for a few years, or at least work part-time while the kids are growing up, so the family would rely mainly on his income. The man usually has no expectation of the woman being the breadwinner while he stays at home; he fully expects her to be looking after their kids and not bringing home the bacon, so he's less concerned about her earnings. It's all about traditional gender roles; I wouldn't feel respect (and therefore sexual attraction) for a man if I was significantly wealthier and more powerful than him, and I wouldn't have confidence in his ability to support a family. I'd be prepared to pull my weight and work as much as I could, but I'd still expect to be parenting more and working less than him - most women expect that. Who says that women in college outnumber men? I don't see why that should be the case - unless women are generally smarter? I agree with the poster who said it's about wanting to be with someone who is your equal, someone you have something in common with. I'm fairly educated and intellectual, and I wouldn't be compatible with your average beer swilling factory worker; we would simply have nothing to talk about. But I think the same would apply to educated men - in general they want a smart and attractive woman, someone who is their equal and who contributes to the relationship financially and otherwise, not some empty headed floozy who they have to support financially and who can't hold a decent conversation with them. I have no problem playing the traditional gender role *AS LONG AS* the woman ALSO plays a traditional gender role. If I'm going to support the family, I expect to come home to a spotless house and kids, dinner ready, martini at the ready (and no underwear under the apron ). I do NOT expect to come to a dirty house because the mom has been too busy pursuing her intellectual interests . Of course, I will be more than happy with the latter as well, *as long as* she also brings in half of the income (and I will happily help with the household and the kids if that is the case...)
Eeyore79 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 This is why women want a man with a college education and a decent income... because to a certain extent a lot of them DO want to play house and take on a traditional gender role, and they can't do that with a man who can't support them financially.
DollWelch Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Should women settle for second best? Yes, absolutely! Once a woman reaches a certain age, it's almost mandatory for her to settle with a man that's fairly of equal par as herself. It's that simple. Settling doesn't necessarily mean unhappiness. Happiness is possible to attain after some time has passed in the marriage, and both have matured. Time is ticking. All the great men are taken. (Seriously)
VertexSquared Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 I was going to reply to this with a massive explanation that actually has very logical conclusions, but then I realized nobody would read it. So, I'll paraphrase: 1. Don't "settle" -- just don't give up someone that fulfills your fundamental desires. My definition of "settle" is to put aside your fundamentals for the sake of sticking with someone you know isn't compatible or right for you in some way. 2. Try to figure out your fundamental desires. This requires you to temporarily put aside your "nice to haves" when answering this question. What can you *absolutely not live without* in a partner? 3. Seeking that 10/10 idealized person is not impossible to do, but understand that the statistics may be against your favor. If you want someone who differs from you greatly in the areas of background, education, intelligence, looks, skills, morals, roles, etc, you had better be prepared to understand what kind of person THEY would want and find fundamentally desirable. Furthermore, you had better figure out where to look for said person in order to maximize your chances. 4. Humans are adaptable. Once we achieve a goal, that goal will eventually become a status quo. But don't get too greedy or you'll fall off the peak of your optimization point and wind up with lower expected utility. In other words, be aware of "grass is greener" syndrome and don't risk fundamentals in what you've got for "nice to haves" in another. You'll soon rediscover why your fundamentals were fundamentals to begin with.
Woggle Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 This is why women want a man with a college education and a decent income... because to a certain extent a lot of them DO want to play house and take on a traditional gender role, and they can't do that with a man who can't support them financially. Thankfully not all women think like this. Maybe I am more of a feminist than I thought because I love the fact that my marriage is truly an equal partnership. I don't know why in 2010 where both men and women can support themselves if they are able bodied do we judge people on traditional roles. I do agree though that if a woman insists that a man play the traditional provider role that she should play her role as well.
Mr White Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 This is why women want a man with a college education and a decent income... because to a certain extent a lot of them DO want to play house and take on a traditional gender role, and they can't do that with a man who can't support them financially. I wouldn't have a problem with that if it wasn't for the "have cake and eat it too" attitude often noted in such expectation. You can't get something without giving up something. If you want the traditional role - fine, but if so - embrace it; don't walk around resentful telling everybody how you've sacrificed career in order to stay at home with the kids . Take good care of your husband instead. I only have a problem with the expectation that a man should provide the conditions for intellectual fulfillment and development AND pay for everything. (And by the way, many men would welcome the opportunity to drop everything for a few years and hang out at home with their babies, but that isn't an option, is it?) Also, the problem is relative - for a woman that makes $70-80k, a man that makes $50-60k is STILL a bum in her eyes , although objectively that is above the median income.
WalkInThePark Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Well, that explains a lot, some therapy could be beneficial. You seem to carry anger well beyond reasonable expectations, which is really at the core of the "I will not settle" shouting from rooftops... Why would I need therapy if I already receive free analysis from you? I learn from the mistake my mother made, isn't that what smart people do when they see how someone else made their life miserable... What is wrong with saying that I won't settle? I am not shouting it nor writing a book about it whereas Ms Gottlieb extrapolates her own frustration in such a way that she prescribes what all other women should do.
Peaceful Guy Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 At what point should a women stop believing the fantasy and start getting real? well, its not all or nothing!!! i mean, its not little school girl fantasy vs. cold adult reality here.. time should alter expectations but that's not the same thing as "second best".. i wouldn't put too much weight on other people's regrets.. at least not in the negative! :)
Nikki Sahagin Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Perhaps I am one of these woman far too inundated with the myth of the one or the knight in shining armour, but I personally believe that NO-ONE, man or woman should settle for anything but the person that never leaves their mind or their heart. I would rather be single than be in a relationship for the sake of it, and I can't understand people that are so afraid or bored of people alone and single, that they would sacrifice the possibility of finding that kind of love, just to have someone there. I know being single can be lonely, especially when people are older and have dreams of a family. For me, my dreams of children are in correlation with my love for a partner. If I never fall in love again, I doubt I would have children, but I wouldn't get into a relationship with just anyone TO have children. Maybe I see things far too black and white, but I would never settle for anything but the person I feel 'that way' for. Its not even about a checlist of credentials, its just the chemistry, that you feel or you don't. If I never find this, I would rather be forever single and searching, than trapped with a man that I could pretty much interchange with any other man. I think that would depress me more than being single. It would also be unfair to him.
Mr White Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Maybe I see things far too black and white, but I would never settle for anything but the person I feel 'that way' for. Its not even about a checlist of credentials, its just the chemistry, that you feel or you don't. If I never find this, I would rather be forever single and searching, than trapped with a man that I could pretty much interchange with any other man. I think that would depress me more than being single. It would also be unfair to him. Actually I think that's the problem, the black and white thinking. In reality, nobody is 100% awesome or 100% horrible. And yes, we are all interexchangeable and disposable. What defines a good relationship is not some unique quality of the love interest, but rather the "jorney", i.e. the interaction that makes a relationship yours and special...
Mr White Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Why would I need therapy if I already receive free analysis from you? I learn from the mistake my mother made, isn't that what smart people do when they see how someone else made their life miserable... What is wrong with saying that I won't settle? I am not shouting it nor writing a book about it whereas Ms Gottlieb extrapolates her own frustration in such a way that she prescribes what all other women should do. I'm merely referring to the militant, black-and-white way of approaching the topic. Most people are not "miserable losers" - they're just average. If your mom was sooo unhappy, she could have divorced and pursued her true interests/love. I wonder what stopped her. If anything, I'm not sure who's the victim here - somebody who knowingly "settled", or the person who they "settled for", who regardless of whatever shortcomings are in place might have had genuine feelings. Just sayin'; hypothetically.
carhill Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 A friend recently met a lady. They had both lost their spouses in the last couple years (to terminal illness) and both had been married over forty years. I got to know the man while he was caring for his wife as she died of cancer. She seemed like 'the one', watching them together. Perhaps he is truly lucky to find 'the one' twice in life, but there surely isn't anything right now that can wipe the smile off his face. Likewise for his new ladyfriend. Such stories inspire hope that there is a path other than perfection or settling. In any event, I'm happy for them
Eeyore79 Posted May 12, 2010 Posted May 12, 2010 Thankfully not all women think like this. Maybe I am more of a feminist than I thought because I love the fact that my marriage is truly an equal partnership. I don't know why in 2010 where both men and women can support themselves if they are able bodied do we judge people on traditional roles. The thing is, somebody has to look after the kids and work part time, and somebody has to work full time to bring in more money. Usually the woman does the former and the man does the latter, but occasionally it's the other way round. A truly equal partnership where both people support themselves is impossible if you have kids to raise - somebody has to be left holding the baby. Once a woman reaches a certain age, it's almost mandatory for her to settle with a man that's fairly of equal par as herself. Hell, I'd settle for a man of equal par right now, and would have done at any point since I was a teenager! The problem is finding a man who is even roughly equal, and the older and more accomplished I get, the harder it becomes.
Rorschach Posted May 12, 2010 Posted May 12, 2010 The thing is, somebody has to look after the kids and work part time, and somebody has to work full time to bring in more money. Usually the woman does the former and the man does the latter, but occasionally it's the other way round. A truly equal partnership where both people support themselves is impossible if you have kids to raise - somebody has to be left holding the baby. As part of my chosen proffession I sit down with alot of married couples and talk about their finances, and I'm here to tell you a good 70+% of marriages BOTH people work full time. There are very very few marriages where only one person works full time and the other part time/no time. And of the few that do work that way they are often the most financially screwed up people I see. It is VERY difficult to work with just one income nowadays. With the exception of the first year or two of a childs life both man and woman should be out working if you want your finances to survive at all.
Ruby Slippers Posted May 12, 2010 Posted May 12, 2010 It is VERY difficult to work with just one income nowadays. That's because the middle class has been squeezed to death and consumer spending on frivolities is still out of control. Not a positive trend.
MrNate Posted May 12, 2010 Posted May 12, 2010 As part of my chosen proffession I sit down with alot of married couples and talk about their finances, and I'm here to tell you a good 70+% of marriages BOTH people work full time. There are very very few marriages where only one person works full time and the other part time/no time. And of the few that do work that way they are often the most financially screwed up people I see. It is VERY difficult to work with just one income nowadays. With the exception of the first year or two of a childs life both man and woman should be out working if you want your finances to survive at all. I agree. Would anyone like to guess one of the top, if not, the greatest cause of divorce?
Recommended Posts